Exemption from Criminal Liability: History of the Formation and Development of the Institution in Domestic Law, Current State, and Development Prospects.

Serenko Roman Sergeevich ORCID: 0000-0002-7667-6918 Lecturer; Department of Criminal Law; Southwestern State University 305040, Russia, Kursk region, Kursk, ul. 50 let Oktyabrya, 94, room 710 romanserenko@bk.ru Other publications by this author

Throughout the history of mankind, criminal liability for socially dangerous acts has remained a key tool for protecting law and order and the security of society. However, in parallel with its formation, exceptional circumstances arose almost immediately in which the person who committed the crime could escape punishment. In modern legal doctrine, such cases are designated as grounds for exemption from criminal liability, forming an independent legal institution.

The analysis of the oldest legal monuments demonstrates that already at the early stages of the development of legislation, a differentiated approach to sentencing can be traced. Issues related to the history of the institution of exemption from criminal liability in Russian law have been highlighted in the works of prominent scientists such as N.S. Tagantsev, M.D. Shargorodsky, A.A. Hercenson, M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, I.Ya. Foynitsky. However, despite the considerable amount of research devoted to the history of the institution of exemption from criminal liability, this topic requires further scientific development. The existing works mainly focus on the analysis of normative sources and formal legal aspects, while the socio-political, economic and cultural factors that influenced the development of the institute have not been studied sufficiently. In general, further study of the history of the institution of exemption from criminal liability will not only fill in existing gaps in science, but will also contribute to its improvement in accordance with the principles of humanism, justice and effectiveness of criminal policy.

Initially, exemption from responsibility was in the nature of an act of mercy, conditioned by religious, social or political factors. For example, in Roman law there were mechanisms of pardon, and in medieval codes of laws there were rules on the non–prosecution of minors or the insane.

Over time, this institution has evolved, transforming from an exceptional measure into a systemic element of criminal policy. Its development has always correlated with changes in public consciousness, the principles of humanism, and the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement.

In current legal systems, exemption from criminal liability is not just a manifestation of leniency, but a rational mechanism used in cases where the goals of punishment can be achieved without the actual execution of sanctions, or further criminal prosecution is considered inappropriate, taking into account the nature of the act and the identity of the perpetrator.

The Russian legislator, following the principles of optimizing criminal repression, traditionally prefers alternative measures of influence. The institution of exemption from liability in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation serves as a tool for differentiating legal consequences, allowing minimizing punitive effects where correction is possible without isolation from society.

Thus, exemption from criminal liability has gone from isolated acts of mercy to a complex legal construct reflecting the balance between the inevitability of punishment and the humanity of law. Its further improvement is inevitably linked to adaptation to new challenges, be it the digitalization of crime or the transformation of social values.

The methodology of the research conducted in the framework of this work is based on an integrated approach combining a number of interrelated and interdependent methods. In particular, the following methods were used: the historical and legal method, which made it possible to trace the evolution of the institution of exemption from criminal liability through the analysis of the main legal monuments, the formal legal method, which helped to identify the process of transformation of legal structures based on the analysis, the comparative analysis, through which the place of the institution of exemption from criminal liability in domestic criminal law was revealed.

It is almost impossible to analyze any institution, its current state, as well as to clarify problematic aspects within the framework of its implementation without taking into account the history of its formation and the specifics of its functioning at one stage or another of the development of the state and law. In this regard, before proceeding to the essence of the research, it is necessary to pay attention to the study of issues related to the history of the origin and gradual improvement of the institute, which is currently referred to as exemption from criminal liability. It is most advisable to conduct such a study based on the analysis of legal monuments.

It is also advisable to begin the analysis of the features of exemption from criminal liability by studying the history of the formation of this institution in Russian law.

In our opinion, the study should begin in the 11th century, since it was at this time that the first written code of laws was created, which has survived to the present day. In general, the study of the sources of the law of Ancient Russia, combined with the works of Russian researchers, makes it possible to establish that the criminal legislation of that time cannot be characterized as a single, clearly structured system. Russian Russian Truth in its short and lengthy edition, as well as the church Statutes of the Russian princes and the Pilot Book ^{[1, p. 753]} are most often considered as sources of the criminal law of Ancient Russia. At the same time, despite the lack of a well-established legal system, it was in the 11th century that the foundation was laid for the development of legal norms, which over time and as a result of numerous transformations transformed into the institutions of law known to us in modern sources of law. Russian Russian Truth, being the oldest monument of Russian law, contains the first beginnings of the institution of exemption from liability, although in the modern sense this mechanism did not exist at that time. Most of the articles in this code of laws are indeed devoted to issues that are currently regulated by criminal law, which makes it possible to consider it a kind of criminal code of its time. However, the legal technique of the 11th century was primitive - instead of the term "crime", the concept of "offense" was used, covering any offense. Naturally, in such an archaic legal document, it is impossible to find clearly formulated grounds for exemption from liability similar to modern ones. Nevertheless, a careful study of the text of the Russian Truth can reveal certain provisions that in certain situations allowed to avoid punishment. For example, the absence of intent when committing an act or the possibility of reconciliation with the victim through the payment of a wir. It is important to understand that in that historical period there was no difference between exemption from criminal liability and exemption from punishment - these concepts completely coincided. The responsibility was primarily of a property nature, and the main goal was not to correct the offender, but to compensate for the damage caused. Thus, although Russian Truth did not contain a developed system of exemption from liability, it already contained certain elements that later formed the basis of more advanced legal institutions. These early legal mechanisms reflected the needs of ancient Russian society in conflict resolution and maintaining social order.

In particular, it can be argued that it was in Russian Truth that the beginning of the formation of such grounds for exemption from criminal liability was laid as: reconciliation with the victim; repentance of the person who committed the crime; compensation for damage caused as a result of the commission of the crime ^{[2, P. 214]}.

Thus, as a kind of similarity of signs indicating the possibility of releasing a person from responsibility in connection with reconciliation with the victim, we can consider the provision of Article 1 of the Brief Edition of Russian Truth, according to which the victim, who was called offended at that time, has the right to choose how to act towards the offender: choose the path of revenge or reconcile with him ^{[3, p. 61]}.

As a prototype of the exemption from criminal liability in connection with repentance and compensation for the damage caused, enshrined in Russian Truth, one can consider the provision provided for in Article 32 of its Lengthy wording, according to which responsibility for harboring a slave was established. At the same time, the said article had an indication of the circumstances in which the person who committed such an act would not be subjected to the punishment provided for by it. Such circumstances included the extradition of a runaway slave to the owner with an open confession of his guilt and compensation for damage caused as a result of such actions ^{[4, pp. 95-96]}.

In general, since Russian Truth is only the first set of laws fixed in writing, practically none of the legal institutions, including exemption from criminal liability, have received sufficient elaboration in it. Of course, as is clear from the above, the beginnings of the institution of exemption from criminal liability have appeared, but it is still too early to talk about its detailed regulation and, moreover, about the differences in the application of this institution in relation to cases of different categories, however, for the XI century this document acted as a great achievement in the field of law-making.

During the 12th and 15th centuries, against the background of the political fragmentation of the Russian lands, two powerful state entities acquired special importance - the Pskov and Novgorod republics. These feudal centers developed their own legal systems, which were recorded in the Pskov and Novgorod Judicial Charters. If the Novgorod charter has come down to us only in the form of the only surviving copy, then the Pskov Legal Code of 1467 has been preserved relatively completely, which makes it possible to study its provisions in detail. It is important to emphasize that, unlike the nationwide Russian Truth, the norms of the Pskov Charter were of a local nature, regulating legal relations exclusively within the Pskov land.

The Pskov Judicial Charter marked a qualitatively new stage in the development of criminal law. For the first time, the concept of crime was expanded to include not only attacks on persons and property, but also acts against the State. This legal monument introduced important innovations: the institution of recidivism, the differentiation of crimes by severity, and also legislated the death penalty as the highest measure of punishment.

Of particular interest is the evolution of the institution of exemption from liability. The Pskov Charter detailed and expanded the grounds for ending the persecution, in particular, the institution of reconciliation of the parties. Unlike Russian Pravda, where this mechanism was fragmented, it received a clearer formalization in the Pskov legislation. Although the term "reconciliation" was not used in the text, the practice allowed cases to be dismissed for beatings, theft (tattooing) and robbery when an agreement was reached between the parties. At the same time, the procedural consequences differed: in cases of moderate severity, reconciliation was possible at any stage of the process, whereas for qualified theft punishable by death, such an opportunity was no longer provided. It is curious that reconciliation for some crimes deprived the prince of a part of the income – "sale", which created a certain conflict of interests between private and public law ^{[5, p. 68]}.

An analysis of the legislative acts of Ancient Russia as a whole makes it possible to establish that it was at that time that written law originated and managed to undergo a number of changes. Of course, ancient Russian legislation cannot be called clearly structured, but it was in it that the gradual process of formation of national law began, which eventually led to the formation of well-known legal institutions in modern conditions. Among other things, it was in the first codified acts of Ancient Russia that the first images of the institution of exemption from criminal liability and punishment appeared. However, it is too early to talk about securing the grounds for exemption from criminal liability in both the Russian Truth and the Pskov and Novgorod Judicial Charters. This is mainly due to the fact that all of the above grounds for exemption from criminal liability were applicable, based on an analysis of the sources of law themselves, only to cases of private prosecution that did not affect public interests at all, since the law of the specified period practically did not know such cases, and most of the crimes were related to causing "offense" to a particular the face.

Considering the evolution of the norms on exemption from liability, the Judicial Code of Ivan III of 1497 deserves special attention. This legislative act, created during the formation of the centralized Russian state, incorporated many provisions of the Novgorod and Pskov Judicial Charters, becoming the first national code of laws of Moscow Rus.

The Judicial Code of 1497 introduced significant changes to the criminal law. For the first time, the concept of a "dashing deed" was introduced – a particularly dangerous act that encroaches on established norms and the sovereign's will, causing damage to the ruling class. The legislator detailed the crime system, differentiated the death penalty, dividing it into simple and qualified, fixed aggravating circumstances and regulated judicial procedures.

The institution of exemption from liability in the Judicial System has received new, very specific forms. One of the reasons was the victory in the court battle "field", an archaic but legally fixed way of resolving disputes. Of particular interest is article 56, according to which a serf who escaped from Tatar captivity was not only released from responsibility, but also received freedom from his former master. This norm, paradoxical at first glance, reflected the acute shortage of workers after the Mongol-Tatar yoke and the desire of the state to encourage the return of prisoners. Thus, economic expediency in this case prevailed over traditional feudal relations. The influence of the processes that took place in society and the state on the formation of legislation is already clearly evident here.

Then, after a fairly short period of time, the Judicial Code of 1497 became outdated to a certain extent, which resulted in the adoption of a new codified act based on it, which was similarly called the Judicial Code of Ivan IV of 1550. The new legislative act has retained continuity with the previous sets of laws, but most of its provisions have undergone significant revision. Special attention in the updated document was paid to the regulation of the judicial process: the powers of various judicial instances were clearly delineated, while at the same time the system of punishments was noticeably tightened. A fundamental innovation of key importance for our research was a fundamental revision of the attitude towards repentance and confessions - from mitigating circumstances they turned into indisputable evidence of guilt, in most cases leading to the use of capital punishment.

Despite the general punitive orientation of the legislation, the institution of exemption from criminal liability continued to develop. Article 56 of the Judicial Code of 1497 was significantly expanded: now not only serfs, but also any persons who managed to escape from enemy captivity, were released from both responsibility and former dependence. In addition, a curious precedent has emerged in judicial practice: if the loser of a court duel was publicly whipped, but a subsequent search did not confirm his guilt, such a person could be released from responsibility on condition of bail. This mechanism demonstrated the emergence of elements of the presumption of innocence in the context of medieval justice ^{[6, p. 307]}.

An analysis of historical and legal development shows that by the 16th century, despite the centuries-old evolution of legal thought and the emergence of many legislative acts, Russian law had not yet developed a clear system for applying the institution of exemption from criminal liability. Although each new legal monument of the Rurik era introduced certain adjustments to the regulation of grounds for exemption from punishment, it was premature to talk about an independent legal institution that had developed - the legal system itself did not yet know the sectoral division in the modern sense.

This process requires further study through the prism of the legislation of the new ruling dynasty, the Romanovs. Of particular interest in this context is the Conciliar Code of 1649, adopted during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. This large-scale codified act became a turning point in the history of Russian legislation, laying the foundations for the systematization of legal norms.

Created in the "rebellious age", the Code reflected all the social upheavals of the era through the tightening of criminal policy: the list of crimes expanded, the persecution of offenders increased, and the system of punishments acquired an openly terrorist character, where the function of intimidation played a dominant role. At the same time, despite the general repressive orientation, the document contained important innovations in the field of exemption from liability, requiring separate consideration. It was this act that consolidated the character of the punitive branch of law for criminal law.

At the same time, despite the apparent tightening of legislation on the issue of sentencing in the case of crimes, there have also been changes in the area of exemption from criminal liability. So, along with a minor, but still reworking of the previously existing grounds for exemption from criminal liability, new ones have appeared, which, along with the previous ones, now include:

- pardon of the Sovereign;

- reconciliation of the victim or his relatives with the offender on the initiative of the court;

- conditional early release from prison of offenders guilty of non-payment of claims, with their further transfer to bail ^{[7, p. 710]}.

In addition to the above, the Conciliar Code of 1649 established a new procedure for the practical implementation of such grounds for liberation as reconciliation with the victim. Thus, in the case of its application, a retrial of the completed case was not allowed, and if a second claim was filed against the perpetrator in such a case, the person who filed it was severely punished ^{[8, p. 116]}. At the same time, exemption from criminal liability was not allowed for the aforementioned reason in relation to repeat offenders, who were called dashing people at that time.

Then, at the beginning of the XVIII century, along with the provisions of the Cathedral Code that were still in force, numerous decrees adopted by Peter I began to be applied in practice. It is here that it should be noted that next we will talk about the legislation of the Russian Empire, since it was during the reign of Peter the Great that Russia acquired such a status, and he himself became emperor.

The Military Article of 1715, which continues the systematization of Russian legislation, acts as the most significant Peter the Great Act. It was he who, for the most part, was a collection of norms of criminal law and acts as a kind of codified source of criminal law of that time. That is, it is already advisable to talk about the existence of such an independent branch of law as criminal law, since one of the most important signs of the existence of a branch of law is the presence of a codified act, although it does not meet all the requirements for such acts. It is important to note the fact that there is a characteristic feature inherent in the criminal law of the early XVIII century, which is that it essentially served as a tool in the hands of exploitative feudal lords directed against the exploited people, and was characterized by the use of particularly merciless and painful punishments.

Unlike other criminal law institutions, the norms on exemption from liability in the Petrine era developed extremely slowly. The military article of 1715 only modified the pre-existing grounds, significantly limiting their use. Thus, the reconciliation of the parties has lost its liberating character, becoming only a mitigating circumstance, permissible only in cases of private prosecution. The new grounds - repentance and the voluntary appearance of the deserter - also did not entail full release, but only mitigated the punishment, at best replacing the death penalty with milder measures of influence ^{[9, p. 328]}.

Paradoxically, full exemption from liability during this period could only be provided for by secondary regulations – decrees and manifestos, which were subordinate in relation to the Article.

Drastic changes occurred only with the adoption in 1845 of the Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments, which became the first full-fledged codified criminal law in the history of Russia. This document not only systematized criminal legislation, but also laid down modern principles of exemption from liability, many of which are preserved in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The Code of 1845 regulated in detail the five key grounds for liberation:

1. The death of the accused, eliminating both the actual possibility and the legal expediency of punishment;

2. The victim's refusal to be charged (acted only in cases of private prosecution);

3. The expiration of the statute of limitations, after which the crime was considered "redeemed time";

4. The act of pardon as a manifestation of the monarch's mercy;

5. Reconciliation of the parties, which allowed the victim to petition for the termination of the case ^{[10, p. 425]}.

It is noteworthy that three of these grounds (prescription, pardon, and reconciliation) have been preserved in a modified form in modern criminal law, which emphasizes the historical continuity and importance of the 1845 Code as the foundation of Russian criminal law doctrine.

At the same time, it is precisely in the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments that a system of crimes in the field of economic activity is being formed. In this legislative act, it is already possible to observe the existence of a number of economic crimes, which were called economic crimes at that time. This state of affairs is largely due to the ongoing rethinking of the functions of the state in the economic sphere ^{[11, p. 162]}.

In addition to separating economic crimes into a separate group, the Code of 1845 for the first time established the basis on which a person who committed such an act could be released from responsibility. In particular, we are talking about Article 591 of the Criminal and Correctional Penalties Code, according to which a person guilty of "counterfeiting gold, silver, platinum and copper coins," that is, committing a crime known today as counterfeiting, could be released from criminal liability and not subjected to any kind of punishment in the case of voluntary reporting of a crime and its accomplices, as well as assistance in exposing all the perpetrators and preventing them from committing new crimes. At the same time, the identity of the person who exposed his accomplices was kept secret ^{[12, p. 591]}.

It is this codified act that can be called the first source of law that established the specifics of exemption from criminal liability. Of course, at that time there was no existing list of grounds on which a person could be released, since such grounds were specified within the framework of a specific article and could only be applicable to a specific crime.

Continuing the analysis of the sources of law of the pre-revolutionary period, it should be noted that during the reforms that took place in the 60-70s of the XIX century, many changes and improvements were made to the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments, and in 1864 the Statute on Punishments imposed by Magistrates was adopted, which, of course, has a significant role, however, in The institution of exemption from criminal liability as a whole has brought practically no significant changes, with the exception of one rather important point in the framework of this study. Thus, based on the analysis of Article 21 of the Supreme Opinion of the State Council, approved on 05/15/1867, persons guilty of committing crimes encroaching on forest possessions provided for in the Statute on Penalties imposed by Magistrates, it follows that if the penalty for committing such a crime is a monetary penalty, they may be released from further proceedings against them if if, with the consent of the forest owner or his attorney, they pay the penalties due from them ^{[13, art. 21]}. The provision set out in this article, which in its essence can be considered as a kind of supplement to the existing Statute on Punishments, acts as the first consolidation at the legislative level of the prototype of the grounds for exemption from criminal liability, which today is known as "Exemption from criminal liability with the imposition of a fine", provided for in art. 76.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The large-scale socio-economic transformations of the second half of the 19th century required a radical revision of the criminal legislation of the Russian Empire. Simple amendments to the Code of 1845 could no longer meet the needs of a changed society, which led to the development and adoption in 1903 of a new Criminal Code under Nicholas II. This legislative act was a response to the challenges of the time, embodying all the accumulated legal achievements of the era of Great Reforms.

Within the framework of the new Code, there has been a fundamental transformation of many criminal law institutions, including issues of exemption from liability. It is characteristic that the legislators deliberately refused to single out a special article systematizing the grounds for release – the relevant norms were dispersed into articles devoted to specific types of crimes. This approach, of course, represented a step backwards in terms of systematization of law.

Nevertheless, the Code of 1903 introduced a number of new psychophysiological grounds for liberation.:

- pathological disorders of mental activity;

- states of affect or confusion;

- mental retardation caused by physical pathologies;

- expiration of the statute of limitations.

The monarch's prerogatives retained a special legal status – pardon and pardon remained the exclusive competence of the supreme power, emphasizing the sacred nature of imperial mercy. It is noteworthy that these institutions were completely removed from the framework of ordinary judicial proceedings, becoming acts of the highest will, rather than law enforcement practice ^{[14, p. 156]}.

It is on the Criminal Code of 1903 that the analysis of the pre-revolutionary period of the institution of exemption from criminal liability is completed, summing up which it is advisable to note the fact that the prototype of this institution appeared in the days of Ancient Russia in the first written codes of laws. Then, in almost every monument of Russian law regulating issues related to responsibility for criminal acts, certain aspects of regulating the institution of exemption from such were also touched upon to one degree or another.

Next, attention should be paid to the specifics of regulating issues of exemption from criminal liability within the framework of the Soviet period of the formation of domestic criminal law. Thus, after the revolution of 1917, the general nature of the state's criminal policy was significantly revised, but despite this, the institution of exemption from criminal liability in the first criminal legal acts of the legislator did not undergo significant changes, it continued to develop in almost the same direction as before.

It should be noted here that there is a polarity of opinions about the degree of influence of pre-revolutionary law on the Soviet and modern legal systems. Thus, a number of researchers insist on a fundamental break in the legal tradition after 1917, while other scientists identify elements of continuity in the development of the institution. Supporters of the break argue that there is a revolutionary abolition of all legislation that took place before 1917; the class character inherent in Soviet criminal law; fundamentally new grounds for exemption from criminal liability. In turn, adherents of the idea of continuity constitute facts by preserving in Soviet law the basic legal structures formed in pre-revolutionary law; the adaptation by the Soviet legislator of legal ideas laid down before 1917; the existence of similar procedural mechanisms for ending criminal prosecution. This dispute has not only theoretical, but also practical significance, as it helps to understand the deep mechanisms of the transformation of criminal law and predict the directions of its further development.

Thus, the formation of new criminal legislation begins in 1918, during which a number of decrees regulating certain issues within the framework of criminal law were adopted. One of these decrees is the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars "On Bribery" adopted in 1918, which was one of the first in the framework of the post-revolutionary period of the development of national law to legislate certain aspects of exemption from criminal liability. Thus, in accordance with Article 6 of the said act, the basis for exemption from criminal liability of the bribe giver was provided. The reason for this was to inform the perpetrators of the fact of the crime committed no later than three months after the Decree was issued ^[15]. This formulation took place in connection with the need to consolidate the possibility of applying the said act to crimes committed before its adoption, that is, its retroactive effect. In subsequent normative legal acts, the specified grounds for exemption also took place, however, there was no indication of the period during which it could be implemented, but the term "timely" was used ^[16].

It is important to note that the first normative legal acts aimed at codifying criminal law at this stage are the Criminal Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of 1922, the Basic Principles of Criminal Legislation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Union Republics of 1924, as well as the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926, which are generally in their structure and content the norms did not differ significantly.

As for the crimes known today as committed in the sphere of economic activity, in general, in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922, they were separated into a separate chapter called "Economic crimes", however, for certain types of crimes that are considered economic in modern conditions, the said act also fixed in other chapters. If we talk about the grounds for exemption from criminal liability, then the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 included: commission of a crime in a state of insanity (art. 17); commission of a crime by a minor or a minor under the age of 16 (art. 18); commission of a criminal offense with necessary defense (art. 19); commission of a crime in imminent danger (art. 20); expiration of a certain period from the moment of commission of the crime, that is, the limitation period (Article 21); the application of a suspended sentence to a convicted person (Article 36); the application of conditional early release (Article 52) ^[17].

The Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926, in addition to the above, also named as grounds for exemption from criminal liability: a change in the situation resulting in loss by an act or a person of public danger (art. 8); failure to enforce a conviction within 10 years from the date of its imposition (art. 15); the inexpediency of applying social protection measures to a convicted person (that is, punishment) (V. 52) ^[18].

At the same time, there was a special reason for exemption from criminal liability in these acts, namely, the above–mentioned notification of the fact of a crime committed by a bribe giver. This basis was fixed in special parts of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 and the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926 in articles on responsibility for bribery, namely– Articles 114 and 118, respectively.

By the middle of the 20th century, the institution of exemption from criminal liability had undergone significant changes. After a long period of relative stability in legal regulation, drastic changes occurred with the adoption in 1958 of the Fundamentals of Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics. This normative act became an important milestone in the development of domestic criminal law, for the first time consolidating exemption from criminal liability as an independent legal institution. Of particular importance was the clear distinction between exemption from liability and exemption from punishment, which is reflected in article 48 of this document.

The new legislative act has significantly expanded the list of grounds for exemption from criminal liability. In addition to the traditional conditions, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations or acts of amnesty and pardon, fundamentally new provisions were established for the first time. These included: the possibility of replacing criminal punishment with measures of public influence if it is deemed inexpedient; loss of a person's public danger due to a change in the situation; as well as special grounds related to voluntary surrender, sincere repentance and reparation for the harm caused.

The Criminal Code of the RSFSR, adopted in 1960, generally retained these provisions, without making significant changes to the regulation of the institution of exemption from liability. This stability persisted for several decades, until the drastic political and socio-economic transformations of the early 1990s.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the formation of a new Russian state required a fundamental revision of the entire legal system. Most of the norms of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960 have lost their relevance in the new historical conditions. The development of modern criminal legislation was carried out taking into account radical changes in the political system, the transition to a market economy and the transformation of public relations.

The result of this work was the adoption in 1996 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is still in force. In the new code, the institution of exemption from criminal liability was further developed, maintaining continuity with previous legislation, but at the same time adapting to the modern realities of the Russian legal system.

In the original version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996, the issues of exemption from criminal liability were regulated by articles 75-78, combined into Chapter 11. These rules established four main grounds for exemption from liability. Additionally, the General Part of the Code provided for special procedures: release under amnesty (Article 84) and a special procedure for applying this institution to minors (Article 90).

The evolution of criminal law has led to a significant expansion of the system of exemption from liability. In the current version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Chapter 11 already includes six specialized articles. (75, 76, 76.1, 76.2, 78, 78.1), regulates in detail the various grounds for termination of criminal prosecution. Special attention should be paid to the appearance in the Special part of the Code of numerous special norms providing for the possibility of exemption from liability ^[19].

The current state of the institution of exemption from criminal liability demonstrates a qualitatively new level of legal regulation in comparison with all previous historical periods. The significant expansion of the list of grounds reflects two key trends in modern criminal law: firstly, the continuous evolution of legal mechanisms, and secondly, the consistent humanization of the State's criminal policy. It is important to emphasize that criminal liability has ceased to be considered as the only possible response to criminal behavior.

At the same time, the legislator maintains a principled position: the use of the institution of exemption from liability is possible only if the fact of committing a criminally punishable act is established. This approach means that although the institution in question significantly facilitates the situation of the person who committed the crime, it is not equivalent to rehabilitation. Exemption from liability does not entail acquittal or recognition of a person as innocent, but is a special legal mechanism that allows in certain cases to avoid criminal prosecution while maintaining the fact of committing an unlawful act ^[20].

An analysis of current trends in the development of the institution of exemption from criminal liability allows us to conclude that the legislator made a conscious choice in favor of expanding the possible options for the release of perpetrators from criminal prosecution. This steady trend, which has been observed since the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996 and has been increasing in recent years, is causing lively discussions in the scientific community. Many authors note the ambiguity of this approach, pointing out the need to maintain a balance between humanizing criminal policy and ensuring the inevitability of punishment.

A distinctive feature of the current stage of development of the institution in question, in comparison with previous historical periods, was the appearance in the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation of special grounds for exemption from criminal liability. We are talking about norms that provide for the possibility of exemption from liability for the commission of specific crimes under certain conditions. As a rule, such provisions are contained in the notes to the relevant articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or are highlighted in separate parts of the articles. Typical examples include:

- a note to Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for exemption from liability upon the voluntary release of the abducted;

- a note to art. 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which allows to release from liability a person who actively contributed to the disclosure of a crime and in respect of whom extortion took place;

- a note to Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates the conditions for exemption from liability for facilitating terrorist activities.

It is noteworthy that the list of such special grounds does not remain static – it is systematically supplemented with new provisions, which indicates a purposeful policy of the legislator in this direction.

Historical analysis allows us to identify four main stages in the formation of the institution of exemption from criminal liability in Russian law, each of which has its own characteristic features.:

1. The pre-revolutionary period (11th century - October 1917) was the stage of formation of the initial ideas about exemption from liability, when there was no clear distinction between exemption from criminal liability and exemption from punishment. This long historical period covers the operation of such important legal monuments as the Russian Truth, the Judicial Codes of 1497 and 1550, the Cathedral Code of 1649, and the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845.

2. The Soviet period (October 1917 - 1958) was a stage of fundamental revision of criminal law concepts under the influence of revolutionary transformations. During this period, the institution of exemption from liability developed under the influence of changing socio-political and economic conditions, which was reflected in the first Soviet criminal codes of 1922 and 1926.

3. The period of codification (1958-1996) is a stage of systematization of criminal law norms, which began with the adoption of the Fundamentals of Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics in 1958. It was during this period that there was a fundamental distinction between the concepts of exemption from criminal liability and exemption from punishment, which was reflected in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1960.

4. The modern period (from 1996 to the present) is a stage of active development and differentiation of grounds for exemption from liability related to the operation of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This period was characterized not only by the expansion of traditional grounds, but also by the emergence of special rules on exemption from liability for specific crimes.

Despite the centuries-old history of development, the institution of exemption from criminal liability continues to need improvement. In recent years, there has been a clear trend towards the humanization of criminal policy, which is reflected in the expansion of grounds for exemption from liability. However, this trend is accompanied by serious scientific discussions about the limits of such humanization. Of particular relevance is the problem of finding a balance between two contradictory processes, on the one hand, the increasing importance of alternative criminal liability methods of influencing offenders, on the other hand, the increasing criminalization of many areas of public life, which in the doctrine of criminal law is often characterized as "criminalization redundancy."

In the future, it is possible to develop the institution of exemption from criminal liability in two main areas: first, further expansion of the grounds for exemption as a manifestation of the humanization of criminal policy, and secondly, the use of this institution as a kind of "counterweight" to excessive criminalization, which will require careful scientific study and balanced legislative regulation.

Thus, the current stage of development of the institution of exemption from criminal liability is characterized by a complex interaction of various trends, which makes its further improvement one of the urgent tasks of criminal law policy.