... Роби велике, не обіцяй великого (Піфагор) ...

Головне меню

Міжнародна науково-практична конференція 30.05.19 - СЕКЦІЯ №5
«Mechanism» category does not usually provoke any debates in science. As a rule it implies a system of interdependent elements, in which movement (change) of one or several ones provokes movement (change) of other elements of the system [2, p. 62]. At the same time, the sphere of scientific search for individual criminal behavior mechanism nature cannot be considered non debatable. In this connection, it is worth mentioning that there are three main approaches to its understanding in criminological science. Within the first, motivational one, (B.S.Volkov, A.B.Sakharov, B.V.Kharazishvili and others) the dominant of personal in criminal activity genesis is substantiated. Within the second, behaviorist one, (L.Berkovin, Ya.M.Brainin, H.Hackhousen and others) the dominant of external stimuli, situation is substantiated. The third approach (V.V.Holina, O.M.Dzhuzha, V.M.Kudriavtsev, A.K.Shcherbakova, V.A.Shcherbakov.etc.) forms integrative understanding of criminal behavior development process, in which personal and situational characteristics are linked on a par. Just the latter approach seems to be the most substantiated and gnoseologically fruitful, correct, because it enables to analyze individual criminal behavior mechanism comprehensively, neither underestimating nor exaggerating the significance of some of its components. Thus, O.M.Lytvynov and A.K.Shcherbakov understand the individual criminal behavior mechanism as an ideal model of active coordination of personality and environment, which is realized in committing a particular crime [3, p. 14]. On the whole, supporting this vision, it should be added, that individual criminal behavior mechanism does not reflect just coordination between personality and environment. This is an analytical construct, whose elements form a dynamic system of psycho-physical activity of a person coordinating with environment before, during and after committing a crime and in connection with its committing. The components of individual criminal behavior mechanism usually are as follows: a) structural components: personality of a criminal, circumstances of environment, criminogenic situation; b) functional (dynamic) components – stages: demand actualization and motive formation, making decision of committing corruptible and other criminal offences including the sphere of punishment execution, its planning, realization, postcriminal behavior [2, p. 138]. Their research is not only of theoretical but of practical significance, particularly, for efficient preventive activity, defining specific objects of preventive influence, its means, measuring the results of the work done [4, p.286]. As the results of the given research show, it is the reason why modern psychology (to less extent) and jurisprudence (to greater extend) suggest theories, conceptions, approaches and just scientific positions concerning behavior motives and motivation in general, and criminal one, in particular. This circumstance causes the necessity to clarify terminology, used in this work. The position of the following scientists is the most profound (psychologists – V.K. Viliunas, K. Levin, O.M. Leontiev, S.L. Rubinshtein, K.K. Platonov, criminologists – H.A. Avanesov, B.S. Volkov, A.P. Zakaliuk, K.Ye. Igoshev, E.F. Pobehaylo, etc.), who give functional and analytical role to “motive” category. The point is that a motive is defined by behavior determination aspect, which is not of independent psychic nature, but forms a united complex of psychic processes, phenomena and states, that ensure the influence determining a person’s activity. Investigating the place of a motive in stimulating process, A.P.Zakaliuk proved, that it does not appear an independent element of this process, apart from demand, interest, purpose, attitude and its other elements [4, p. 288]. As K.K. Platonov mentioned, demands taking the function of behavior excitement become motives [5, p. 152]. A demand itself is a state of a person who needs what is beyond him [6, p.44]. It becomes a motive as a person experiences and is aware of needing a certain object and forms purposes [7, p.110-111]. Yu.V.Orlov neontological, because it does not correspond to present nervous and psychological processes, but consolidates functional and autonomous states, psychics processes, in a particular configuration. Along with this, expediency of operating the indicated category is defined, giving it a synthetic function: a motive determines general behavior direction on the basis of a specific emotional state, stipulated by will action, uniting demand-dynamic sphere, will, volitional activity and goal-setting. Thus, a motive is considered by scientists rather as psychics function – its ability to balance dynamically unbalanced states of unsatisfied (actualized) needs through activating volitional subject activity [8, p.116-117].
The stated motive vision is not, of course, irreproachable. It does not take fully human personality diversity, especially unrealized principles of behavior determination, role of instincts and reflexes, into consideration. But it should be acknowledged, that universal motivation theory is unlikely to be possible [4, p. 291]. So, analyzing and summing up individual criminal behavior motivation in the sphere of punishment execution, it is necessary to answer the following questions: 1) do the motives of committing these corruptible or other criminal offences differ from the criminal behavior motives beyond this sphere, from point of view of a general subject? 2) if yes, does the motivation systematically reproduced and /or constantly available (generated) influence the criminal behavior in the sphere of punishment execution, criminal’s personality and in what way?
As it is established in the process of the given research, taking the mentioned positions concerning motivation and motives essence into account, it should be pointed out that the answer to the first question depends on: a) understanding the peculiarity of activity in the sphere of punishment execution of Ukraine as a complex factor of external environment in the context of individual criminal behavior mechanism; b) knowing peculiarities of criminal’s personality. If the latter ones are described in the previous part of this research, criminological meaningful peculiarities of activity in the sphere of punishment execution should be marked just in general: a) firstly, it is worth paying attention to the fact, that a certain sector of the indicted activity traditionally belongs to law enforcement one, that is provides for authority and is aimed at achieving general social useful result concerning protection of rights, freedoms, legitimate interests of legal relation subjects. The peculiarity of this type of law enforcement activity is the fact that it is realized within criminal and executive relations; b) secondly, internal administrative relations are an integral element of activity in the sphere of punishment execution of Ukraine, it concerns administering personnel, PEI property, that is economic activity.
Three approaches can be distinguished after analyzing scientists’ works on the correspondent problems. The first approach is presented by the scientists’ positions, based on traditional criminological classifications of the motives of corruptible and other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution. For example, O.A. Martynenko distinguished the following motives of corruptible and other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution: profitable, violent, “ideological”, conformist, thoughtless and irresponsible. Analogical position are expressed on the works of O.O.Kuplensky [9, p.14], V.O.Samotiyevych [10, p.101-104], and Yu.V. Andreyev [11, p.185-188], V.M. Diomin [12, p.18], O.V. Salatin [13, p.15-16]. Generally speaking, the indicated approach is meaningful, is based on theoretically substantiated and verified provisions of common criminological doctrine. But in this point it turns out to be weak: on the general level the features of specific, peculiar cannot be reflected. Nevertheless, the point is not about the search for specific criminal behavior motives in the sphere of punishment execution of Ukraine, though their characteristics has to take peculiarity of a criminal’s personality, official activity sphere into consideration, as the latter in some cases can be a stimulus, an irritant of motivational process, which cannot but influence it. A.V. Savchenko says, that crime motives plurality is a consequence of developing their structure components, and the motives themselves [14, p. 112]. If the activity subject sphere has some peculiarities, it is logically assumed, that motivation also will have peculiarities. This point is confirmed by V.M. Diomin, who after surveying RF PEI personnel and convicts - former workers of this system, who committed offences, made a conclusion, that motivational sphere of offenders differed from motivational sphere of law-abiding workers with some improvement: from cultural and spiritual necessities to material; from proper behavior to consumerism; from stable to situational; from perspective aspirations to urgent ones [12, p. 18]. It should be paid attention herewith, that the difference of motivational crime sphere – PEI personnel – not from law-abiding citizens in general, but from their colleagues, who did not commit corruptible and other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution, is stated. The latter are placed higher specific demands concerning their level and content of legal awareness, other qualities, taking into consideration their law enforcement activity. Undoubtedly, it is on this plane, where the peculiarities of individual criminal behavior motivation in the sphere of punishment execution of Ukraine are worth seeking. Digressing from gnoseologically ascertained distribution of motives in their research, L.V. Kondratiuk and B.S. Ovchynsky suggested and substantiated trinomial crime differentiation, based on aggression, expansion and cheating [15]. On this ground the corresponding motives connected with aggression, expansion and cheating are notable [16, p.117-126]. However, applying elaborated not to the end conception «internal grounds of criminal behavior» as research platform appears to be problematic. So, the works of L.V. Kondratiuk and V.S. Ovchynsky lack conceptual unity of terminology and understanding corresponding phenomena and processes of psychic and transsocial nature [15]. Thus, the above scientists, first, actually identify meanings of a vector (direction) and “passions” as a certain source of behavior, which does not seem to be substantiated enough. Second, the content, essence of passions, their correlation with necessities, instincts, motives, etc. are still obscure. That’s why these circumstances prevent from using the indicated approach in the given research.
The second approach is characterized by attempts to find specific motives of corruptible and other criminal offences inherent in law enforcement officers, including the sphere of punishment execution. Yu.A. Merzlov speaks about the following ones: 1) career; 2) departmental and corporative, based on “collective – worker” relations; 3) status-executive, uniting neglect of official duty, also stipulated by “leader-subordinate” relations; 4) official –profitable, stimulating corruptible offences; 5) ideological, stipulating offences for the sake of official interests realization [17, p.15]. O.M. Varyhin suggests similar classification, but among “professional” motives of criminal activity of the people of the indicated category he distinguished four groups: “official”, profitable, aspiration for demonstrating power over others, conformist [18, p. 110-112]. Other authors’ works have the same point of view with little variations, but they add the so called morally deformed, situational, “problems of everyday family character”, “desire to accumulate money” and similar motives [19, p.192-196]. M.V. Tarasov suggested analogical approach about “set of motives”, estimating offences of officers of internal affairs bodies, as follows: example of friends, colleagues (39,8%); confidence in impunity (27,4%); lack of proper control (18,6); lack of law knowledge (3,6%); necessity of providing the family with subsistence minimum (2,7%); profit (2,7%); aspiration for winning authority (1,8%); lack of “another way out” (1,8%); revenge, jealousy (0,9%); nihilism, objection to necessity of law observance, their importance (0,9%) [20, p. 15]. 
The third approach was formed as a scientific reaction to drawbacks of the first and the second ones, and became an original attempt of their elimination. In Yu.M. Antonian’s opinion, it can be done while distinguishing two different according to the essence, but still extensive groups of motives: “official” and general criminal [21, p. 175]. The first group is formed as a result of incorrect understanding official interests, variety of which causes dissimilarity of offence motives. So, one part of personnel breaks the law for the sake of “justice restoration”, guided by the principle “the end justifies the means”. The other part of personnel is oriented to promotion, getting bonuses, which directly depends on indices, operational situation, etc. The second group of motives is inherent in the activity of the so called “werewolves in the ranks”, that is, law enforcement officers, committing crimes only because of egocentric motives, personal profit. Characteristic features of such people don’t differ from racketeers, thieves, robbers, etc. V.Ye. Eminov shares the same scientific position [22, p. 248-252]. So, the third approach can be considered most substantiated among the above mentioned, as it proceeds from universal human behavior motivation, and together with it provides for peculiarity of some of its variety, depending on the sphere of official activity. According to Yu.M.Antonian, again, investigating criminal behavior motivation, it should be taken into consideration that a crime has plurality of motives, which is the consequence of developing their structure components, and motives themselves [23, p.111-112]. Here O.M. Lytvynov and A.K. Shcherbakov should be supported, as they persist in the position formed in science before, concerning coexistence of different motives on the basis of mutual complement and structural interpenetration [3, p.106]. To fulfill this task, integrative classification of individual criminal behavior motives of PEI personnel in the sphere of their official activity can be suggested.
1. Official motives:
1.1. «Ideological» motives consist in committing corruptible and other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution, for the sake of a certain «good purpose», they are formed in the sphere of: 1) criminal and executive relations; 2) official (subordination) relations among personnel; 3) operational administration, dealing with the property of the corresponding body or PEI. In the main, the point is, that criminal understands official interests in its functional part in wrong, distorted manner. A person sincerely strives for performing his official duties as efficient as possible, which concerns: a) punishment execution, resulting in wrongful acts towards convicts. For example, on June 14th, 2011, at 08.30 a chief inspector responsible for social, educational and psychological work of Berezan correctional colony No.95, exceeded his power using violence in the room of deputy commander of social, educational and psychological work, situated on the institution guarded territory, carrying out educative work with a convict, intentionally struck him numerous blows to both legs and buttocks with red 1,5m long rubber hose, to face and head with hands, to stomach with a knee, as a result, the convict got actual bodily injury [398]; b) personnel management in the corresponding PEI, owing to it official work efficiency should be secured. In this case subordinates are victims, whose behavior (official functions) does not correspond to commander’s idea of a standard; c) operational administration of the property of SCES of Ukraine. For example, the director of Korosten CC No.71 industrial enterprise, acting deliberately, against service interests, instead of directing money deducted from convicts’ pay and those earned out of production and being on the account and in the enterprise cashier’s office, to executing court decisions of recovery of damages, caused to citizens, juridical person and the state, deducted money from convicts wages during the indicated period and spent it on provision with materials and equipment of the enterprise, in that way committed a crime provided for by p.3 art.364 of CC [36]; d) preventing, terminating, solving crimes committed (prepared) on PEI territory. As our research established such crimes are committed by the personnel of correctional colony operational subdivisions. In this aspect demonstrative are the actions of officers of Berezan correctional colony No.95 committing a crime under the following circumstances: on August 29th, 2011 operative department commander of this colony received operational information about the attempt of unfamiliar people to deliver narcotic substance to the territory of the correctional colony, he mobilized his subordinates and two officers on duty, and gave them not registered special means (rubber baton PR-73 and «Teren-4M», «Cobra-111» with tear and irritable gas) to reveal and arrest probable offenders. These people left the colony and remained ambush. As a result they arrested the resident of Kyiv, who tried to pass forbidden narcotic substance on the colony territory. Performing his active arrest, overcoming his resistance, the officers tied his hands, laid him on the ground with the face down, pressed his body with hands, knees and their bodies, which caused his death. Then, trying to hide the crime, the officers deliberately mutually and in coordination wrapped dead body with a blanket, placed it into VAZ-2106 boot, took to the forest, dug a hole and buried the body, covering with soil [35]. In this case, according to archive criminal proceedings, causing incautious death was a result of “ideological” motives, as there was an aspiration for proper performing official duties to prevent committing a crime. As regards this A. Maslow made a conclusion, that studying motives must result from human necessities [24, p.48]. 
1.2. Career promotion motives are one of varieties of self-assertion, forming and realization of which are connected with the sphere of official activity. Career promotion in this case is a factor of person’s approving of himself, by which existential balance of production activity person is secured. This is one of the basic conditions of regular vital activity and personality socializing in functional structures of production relations. For example, professional training chief inspector of personnel sector of Kachanivska correctional colony, driven by career motives to make impression as conscientious and disciplined worker, conspired together with security, supervision and operation first deputy commander and safeguard deputy commander of Kachanivsla correctional colony, acting deliberately and illegally, beyond their authority, without any reason applied physical violence to the victim from 21.30 till 21.55 on April 20th, 2012 in room No.1on the first floor of resocialization section No.10 of the colony, for forced transportation to hospital, though there was no medical prescription of urgent hospitalization [37].
1.3. Nihilistic motives are known as thoughtless and irresponsible in criminological literature [22]. Along with this it should be mentioned that, regarding personnel of PEI of Ukraine, just nihilistic motives are to the point, as their content is broader than thoughtless and irresponsible, besides they embrace not only incautious corruptible and criminal offences, but deliberate as well, being pointed scornful. Just because of that, for those reasons officials commit forgery or admit neglect of official duty. These crimes are characteristic of PEI personal of Ukraine, who either pretends to perform properly their duties or counts thoughtlessly on preventing socially dangerous consequences of their omission. The latter crime motives are called fearful and cowardly [24]. For example, the assistant of supervision and security commander of Komisarivsk correctional colony, being on duty, without expecting dangerous consequences, irresponsibly admitted neglect of official duty. He did not ensure colony daily routine observance, keeping localization regime and serving service by convicts, didn’t organize people on duty, didn’t know operational situation in the colony, didn’t report the administration and people on duty in time about its change, which caused convicts’ uncontrolled leaving isolated local places, didn’t ensure convicts safety isolating them, as a result one convict inflicted grave bodily harm to another one, and the latter died in colony hospital, one more average and actual to other convicts during the period of time from 23.00 on December 19th, 2013 till 05.00, December 20th, 2013 in the educative activity room of section No.7 [38]. It’s clear, that assistant of supervision and security commander admitted criminal neglect of official duty, or self-confidence causing socially dangerous consequences. As scientific literature truly states, similar crimes are determined by a person’s aspiration for facilitating his duty, for not making additional attempts to do it well, or by accepting official interests by mistake, by wrong representing priorities and conditions of performing official duties [39, p. 66-67].
In this context Yu.A.Merzlow’s position, though not substantiated to the full, is worth attention, as he refers cases of official forgery, for the sake of successful statistic results of professional activity, to the so called departmental and corporative motives [17, p.15]. As our research shows, they can be based on two different motives: a) nihilistic, that is disrespect for official interests, when such distorted information about activity results is rather a way of disguising negative state of affairs, sometimes even of outright sabotage; b) careerism, when untruthful information report is a peculiar way of creating semblance of successful professional activity, for the sake of further promotion, receiving approving reference from top ranking officials, the community, etc.
2. General (general criminal):
2.1. Profitable motives are well-known in science don’t need additional explanation in this research. Their essence remain unchangeable both in the content, and socially important feature of the behavior produced by them, which is expressed in the aspiration for receiving advantages of property character. Profit is the basis of most corruptible and other criminal offences on the sphere of punishment execution.
2.2. Self-assertive motives are based on personal necessity of self-actualization and respect (according to A.Maslow’s analytical scheme) [24]. Depending on PEI personnel particular personal features, complex of its official powers, other micro-social conditions, and also criminogenic situation, the indicated motives are able to produce different types of criminal behavior: from aggressive violent to corruptible. A peculiar psychological state of higher anxiety is an intermediate link of criminal activity motivation process of both the first and the second types [25, p.138-139]. Anxiety has protective (predicting danger and preparing for it) and motivational functions. Normal (optimal) level of anxiety is necessary for efficient adapting to the reality (adaptable, mobilizing anxiety). Excessive high level means disadaptable reaction expressed by general behavior and activity disorganization [26, p.123]. For example, a junior inspector of supervision and security department of Tsuman correctional colony No.84 lacking reasons for applying physical force to a convict, who fulfilled all institution personnel requirements, his hands were down, didn’t counteract, in the presence of other convicts, on the ground of personal hostile relations, arising on the spot, struck a blow to the face with a fist and two blows to pelvis with a leg, causing physical pain and inflicting actual bodily harm. He acted deliberately, impudently, driven by the motive of scornful and arrogant attitude towards the convict, aiming at insulting his human dignity and his own false self-assertion [40].
2.3. Protective motives, universal for considerable segment of human activity, criminal including. As Yu.M.Antonian remarked, they are based on necessity of protecting their biological and/or social existence, its confirmation, acquiring confidence and in such a way lowering anxiety and disturbance [22, p. 93]. PEI personnel is not an exception in this aspect: the activity in the sphere of official relations is founded on genetic grounds of developing socially meaningful practice, submits to general specific bio-psychological regularities. The results of the research in the structure of the indicated factors among reproduced in official activity of PEI personnel showed, that the following factors are worth attention: a) conflicts with colleagues, administration; b) threats of convicts, their interference in PEI personnel official activity; c) threat (probability) of dismissal in connection with changes in the list of staff members, staff reduction, etc.; d) threat of catching PEI personnel in prior committing corruptible or other criminal offence or crime. 
2.4. Substitution motives, which science usually links with influence object shift, transferring action from one inaccessible object to accessible one, transforming initial unattainable purpose into another one, by which the corresponding necessity can be satisfied [27, p.67]. Victim’s unessential reasons become criminal action reasons, usually aggressive violent. For example, a junior inspector of supervision and security department of Tsuman correctional colony No.84 lacking reasons for applying physical force to a convict, in reply to one convict’s remark, concerning this officer’s impolite phrases, struck a blow to the face with a fist and two blows to pelvis with a leg, causing physical pain and inflicting actual bodily harm 41]. As a rule, such crime motivation is explained by personal hostility, arising all of a sudden. Actual reasons (necessity actualization factors) of aggressive and violent action motivation of such kind have to be found in quite another plane, than relations between a criminal and a victim.
2.5. Violent- pathological (sadistic), totally infrequent, can be found in certain cases of exceeding powers combined with violence, with abusing official functions concerning imposition of disciplinary penalty. For example, supervision, security and operation deputy commander of Shteriv correctional centre No.137 in Luhansk region thrice on the 14th, 15th, 17th of December 2012 performed violent acts on one convict. So, on the 14th of December during keeping the convict in disciplinary isolation ward, he ordered him to come up to the table, situated in the room opposite disciplinary isolation ward entrance, and to lean against the table. Exceeding his powers, continuing his deliberate actions, he came to the victim’s back and struck three blows to the right leg hip with a rubber stick so that the convict fell on the floor. Then he ordered the convict to get up and he repeated his violent action. It continued on the 15th and 17th days, though in different office rooms, where the victim was summoned, causing severe physical sufferings [41].
Among general criminal motives of corruptible and other criminal offences including the sphere of punishment execution, the so called playing motives are distinguished too [24, p.294]. However, the results of criminal cases and proceedings materials prove, they are not inherent in PEI personnel criminal behavior. It is specified by the very peculiarity of the pointed sphere, PEI personnel authority available, components of criminogenic situations, in which stimulating the corresponding internal motives of pointed confrontation with anybody (anything), characteristic of playing motives, turns out to be objectively and subjectively, irrelevant and illegal. As the given research established, most of corruptible and other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution are based on profit motives.
3. Mixed motives:
3.1 Conformist motives, based on the complex of necessities of ensuring social security and belonging, group inclusiveness in the circle of particular PEI personnel. They can include fear of being dismissed, which is also based on security necessity. Sometimes they are combined with group narcissism (belonging to commander’s “team”), with the feeling of personal devoting to the commander, on whose errand (order) corruptible and other criminal offence or series of them in the sphere of punishment execution is committed.
3.2. Adaptation motives, based on the necessity of ensuring security combined sometimes with profit or nihilism. Such motives, for example, can arise while committing corruptible and other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution, if convicts blackmail. It means, they require to perform certain illegal actions in their favour, concerning: a) threats of exposing PEI personnel former criminal activity; b) offer (by promise) of illegal profit for performing or not performing some actions, with exercise of official status.
3.3. Domination motives, where aggressive violent stimuli are combined with aspirations for self-assertion, self-actualization. On rational level, motivation is often based on social profitable purposes fixation. In such cases, goal-setting process subject plays the role of original catalyst, external irritant – a component of criminogenic situation, which causes PEI personnel to take final decision of committing corruptible and other criminal offences, if there is previously formed undefined readiness for criminal activity. Thus, in out-of-office hours, the commander of Toretsk correctional colony No.28, in the presence of other convicts and the personnel, because of hostile relations, suddenly arising, acting deliberately, impudently, aiming at punishing a convict for breaking regime in punishment execution institution and personal false self-assertion, driven by the motive of scornful and arrogant attitude towards the convict, exceeded his powers and struck him 15 blows, causing actual bodily harm. He committed the crime provided for by p.2 art.365 of CC [42].
1.4. Revenge, as a motive, is of complicated nature, combining aspiration for self-actualization, ensuring respect, career promotion, security, etc. The range of crimes (including the sphere of official activity), motivated by revenge is rather wide. PEI personnel chooses content, direction, specific means, time of criminal activity, taking character and victim behavior intensity (revenge object), amount of victim’s official powers, real possibilities of their purposeful abuse, his volitional and other psychological qualities into cansideration.
The mentioned list of PEI personnel criminal behavior motives is not, of course, exhausted. It also concerns motive classification of both, behavior in general, and crimes, in particular. The point is not only in versatility, polidetermination of human behavior phenomenon (it’s a priori judgment), but in the present terminology confusion in modern psychological and then criminal legal, criminological doctrine [291]. In this connection, the division of PEI personnel criminal behavior motives in the given monograph should be considered as an attempt of improving, specifying present scientific views on genesis of criminal activity, which depends just on the peculiarities of the indicated sphere. But not only the analysis of criminal behavior motives is of theoretical and applied criminological importance. Motive is a static creation. However, human activity is not, and cannot be such. Human activity dynamism, being immanent, is of complicated nature, clarification if which means synthesis of scientific knowledge about motives and motivation. According to A.Maslow, the latter is continuing; organized in a complicated manner, unstable, changeable, and doesn’t stop [24, p.48, 50]. It seems, that motivation conception suggested by S.L.Rubinshtein, is a classical one in academic psychology, according to whom it is subjective human determination of the reality through psyche in the process of its reflection. Because of his motivation the man is interlaced with reality context [29, p. 370]. Here it’s worth supporting O.M.Podilchak, who considers criminal behavior motivation the process of emerging a motive on the ground of actualized necessity, its formation and development, choice of illegal way, activation and correcting criminal activity, aimed at achieving the set purpose. The scientist states, that change of organism physiological state, higher nervous system activity, emotional satisfaction of certain necessities, adopted behavior principles and models are necessary motivation process concomitants, because they influence the hierarchy construction of necessities and motives, motive, purpose and activity manner choice [30, p.111]. Although O.M.Podilchak’s opinion can be deemed on the whole substantiated, it should be marked that motivation process is not limited to activation and action of one motive. As regards this, A.P.Zakaliuk suggested motivation definition, worth attention, namely: “motivation is formation, development and settling process of personal psychological readiness and motives of activity of a certain direction and social significance” [1, p.291]. Really, even within conditionally universal, integral mechanism of criminal behavior, motivational states stipulate motive dynamism, mobility; some of them become dominating in the fixed period of time, in a certain situation, the others become secondary ones. Evidently, changeability of the latter ones does not give any gnoseological reliable grounds for defining criminological significant motivation qualities. Moreover, as A.Maslow stated in this context, neither behavior purposes nor its external manifestation, direction can serve as a proper background for motivation classification. One and the same objective characteristics may affirm about different subjective behavior content [24, p.52-53]. Taking the expounded theoretical provisions, the results of criminal cases and proceedings materials of corruptible and other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution, studied in the course of the given research, into consideration, several conditional types of their motivation can be suggested: 
1. According to typical nature of formation grounds: a) uncommon criminal behavior motivation (initial motivation), when motive formation occurs for the first time, either in connection with a new situation for the person, or with emerging new features of his personality ( especially under the influence of certain experience, frustration development, derivation, psychological alienation, etc.).The point is about the initial personality criminalization, that is, PEI personnel committing corruptible and other criminal offences for the first time; b) common criminal behavior motivation (cyclic motivation) is formed as a result of multiple emerging of the corresponding motive, potential realization of which would contradict service interests, or of direct committing corruptible or other criminal offences in the sphere of punishment execution in certain typical situations with established set of stimuli, irritants.
This typology, according to this research results, has something in common with A.V. Savchenko’s conclusions about motivation of volitional and usual crimes [14, p. 58]. At the same time, it is substantially different. The point is not about usual corruptible offences in traditional for criminology comprehension, formed on the grounds of this dynamic stereotype and entailing narrowed stages of making decisions about committing a crime, owing to which the latter takes reactive features. In the case of common corruptible and other criminal offences motivation, crime itself can be committed for the first time. Only the corresponding motive in the definite situation cannot be formed for the first time, which wasn’t realized in criminal manner, or through PEI personnel self-regulation mechanisms, or because of external obstacles. However, only internal stimuli, excitement, specific emotional, psycho-physiological states don’t turn out for a criminal to be new, they appear rather quickly in a certain situation, and narrow volitional alternative to some extend. Here A.P.Zakaliuk’s opinion is worth attention. The scientist remarked, that motive realization subject estimation is accomplished through a motive in motivation process, as well as the corresponding person’s actions are performed through social content, obtained by the person in the process of adopting social relations. Hence, A.P.Zakaliuk made a conclusion that motives, taking an important constructive place in stimulating mechanism, cannot be integrative aspect of a personality. «its nucleus», as they are influenced greatly by the personality content, by its inner spiritual world [4, p. 290]. Agreeing on the whole with the fact, that motive is unlikely to be a generalized typical factor or a personality, irrelevancies of total eliminating motivation importance in personality genesis should be emphasized as well. That’s why A.Maslow’s conclusions appears to be logical, saying that motivation should be considered from point of view of scholastic approach, ensuring integral conception of both activity personality determination and its reverse influence. A man is motivated as a whole, not his separate part [24, p. 46-47]. If it is so, the reverse link of «motive-personality» type is evident. It is completely clear, that personality systematic stimulation (conscious or unconscious, subconscious) in connection with external environment of one-type motives can considerably influence the personality itself, consolidating inclinations for certain behavior type, finally forming dynamic stereotype.
Motivated behavior can be a kind of a channel through which other intentions can be displayed [24, p. 49]. Thus, a certain type of motivation is able not only to self-consolidate and to self-develop, producing new stimulating branching. Apropos this A.P. Zakaliuk stressed, that criminogenic motivation corresponds to and is a sign of a personality of socially dangerous type [4, p.292]. But, it should also be emphasized that motivation is not only a personality sign, and yet a factor of reverse influence. According to O.V. Sakhnik, in similar situations, on the profound level deformed changes strike the whole personality, which results in disappearing internal obstacles, preventing subjective norm-abiding behavior content interpretation [31, p. 110]. An official begins to consider himself an unsurpassed professional, treats the opinions that don’t coincide with his own position, indulgently and scornfully. Under such conditions personality’s deformed features and qualities function mostly in autonomous regime, they don’t simply wait for favourable conditions for actualization, but search and specially create situations for their own manifestation [31, p. 110-111]. That’s why the bloc of preventive tactical tasks concerning PEI personnel official discipline strengthening, improving the system of their timely reacting to disciplinary offences and those committed beyond the sphere of official activity.
Thus, it can be stated, that PEI personnel common criminal behavior (cyclic motivation) is involved into criminogenic self-determination mechanism. It makes up the background for consolidating and intensifying criminal personality antisocial features, whose criminal activity takes established forms, including crimes. It’s worth agreeing to I.M.Danshyn’s position here, according to which an individual taken the criminal road, refuses established positive social behavior norms and takes new ones, characteristic of a certain asocial group 32, p. 24]. At the same time, dysfunctional (concerning social and economical administrative institution dysfunctions) and corruptible behavior do no create psychological and social alienation from the society in the manner, characteristic of professional criminals [33, p. 28]. Instead, as this research results show, it’s worth speaking about constructing special corporative norms – fixed corruptible and ensuring (including security) communication practices, that is, what V.M. Reismen called operation codes [34, p.50].
2. According to formation intensity: a) suddenly formed (situational) criminal behavior motivation, in which criminogenic situation plays a key role, together with the sphere of necessities, inclinations and dispositions. Such a motivation state causes committing corruptible and other criminal offences under shortened «scenario»: further making decisions stages of committing a crime and decision realization are limited by superficial, brief deliberation. Also, such motivation is inherent in making suggestions, promises or receiving illegal profit when: a) not PEI personnel, but the second side is an initiator of corruptible agreement; b) PEI personnel is an initiator, but the intent is formed suddenly, under the influence of the behavior of potential or real profiteer; c) gradually formed motivation, the genesis of which is burdened with conditional and long states of anxiety and external factors complexes, stimulating PEI personnel crimes. Apart from the previously described type, gradually formed motivation doesn’t emerge under situational, passing factors, but it is a terminated reaction to permanent irritants in vital activity (professional activity, everyday life); it is distinguished by prolonged action character, by diligent preparation, planning security measures, post-criminal behavior.
So, summing up received results of this part of the monograph, it should be noticed, that both motives and motivation, motivational states of a personality (people of PEI personnel) have to be preventive influence object on the individual level. At the same time, strategic purpose of individual preventive measures subsystem has to result from the necessity of breaking criminal behavior motivation, preventing it from emergence, by means of specified methods of personality diagnostics (according to prognostic criteria complex), departmental control and promoting elimination of criminal activity external objects-stimuli. 

Referencer:
1. Martynenko O.A. Determynacyya y preduprezhdenye prestupnosty sredy personala organov vnutrennyx del Ukraynu: monografyya. Xarkov: Yzd-vo XNUVS, 2005. 496 s.
2. Shherbakov V.A. Mexanyzm yndyvydualnogo prestupnogo povedenyya lycz, sovershayushhyx nasylstvennie prestuplenyya protyv lychnosty: dyssertacyya na soyskanye uchenoj stepeny kandydata yurydycheskyx nauk: 12.00.08. Moskva, 2003. 155 s.
3. Shherbakova A.K., Lytvynov O.M. Mexanizm indyvidualnoyi zlochynnoyi povedinky osoby, yaka vchynyaye bandytyzm: xarakterystyka ta protydiya: monografiya. Xarkiv: Panov, 2015. 236 s.
4. Zakalyuk A.P. Kurs suchasnoyi ukrayinskoyi kryminologiyi: teoriya i praktyka: [U 3 kn.]. Kn. 1 Teoretychni zasady ta istoriya ukrayinskoyi kryminologichnoyi nauky. Kyiv: vydavn. dim «In Yure», 2007. 424 s.
5. Yspravytelno-trudovaya psyxologyya: uchebnyk / pod red. K.K. Platonova, A.D. Glatochkyna, K.E. Ygosheva. Ryazan: RVSh MVD SSSR, 1985. 359 s.
6. Avanesov G.A. 10 glav o motyvacyy y motyvax. Cherez pryzmu nauky krymynologyy: monografyya. Moskva: YuNYTY-DANA: Zakon y pravo, 2012. 303 s.
7. Volkov B.S. Determynystycheskaya pryroda prestupnogo povedenyya. Moskva: Yzd-vo RUDN, 2004. 128 s.
8. Orlov Yu. V. Motyv yak oznaka sub'yektyvnoyi storony skladu zlochynu: sutnist ta pytannya docilnosti zakonodavchogo zakriplennya. Pravo i bezpeka. 2011. № 4. S. 116—120.
9. Kuplenskyj A.A. Krymynologycheskaya xarakterystyka prestuplenyj, sovershaemix sotrudnykamy ugolovnogo roziska v svyazy so sluzhebnoj deyatelnostyu: avtoref. dyssertacyy na soyskanye uchenoj stepeny kandydata yurydycheskyx nauk: 12.00.08. Omsk, 1991. 19 s.
10. Samotiyevych V.O. Kryminologichna xarakterystyka osobystosti pracivnykiv OVS Ukrayiny, yaki vchynyayut zlochyny: dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.08. Xarkiv, 2012. 226 s.
11. Andreev Yu.V. Sotrudnyky yspravytelnix uchrezhdenyj kak subekti prestuplenyj protyv gosudarstvennoj vlasty y ynteresov gosudarstvennoj sluzhbi: ugolovno-pravovoj y krymynologycheskyj aspekt: dys. ... kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.08. Chelyabynsk, 2002. 217 s.
12. Demyn V.M. Profylaktyka pravonarushenyj sotrudnykov ugolovno-yspolnytelnoj systemi: avtoref. dys. ... kand. yuryd. nauk:12.00.08. Moskva, 2007. 25 s.
13. Salatyn A.V. Xarakterystyka dolzhnostnix prestuplenyj sotrudnykov ugolovno-yspolnytelnoj systemi y klassyfykacyya lychnostej prestupnykov [Elektronnij resurs]. URL: http://www.fsin.su/territory/Vipe/journal_bulletin_of_the_institute/archive/magazine/16/03.pdf. Nazvanye s ekrana.
14. Savchenko A.V. Motyv i motyvaciya zlochynu: monografiya. Kyiv: Atika, 2002. 144 s.
15. Kondratyuk L.V., Ovchynskyj V.S. Eshhе raz o krymynologycheskom ponyatyy prestuplenyya y prestupnosty [Elektronnij resurs]. Zhurnal rossyjskogo prava. 2004. № 9. URL: http://www.lawmix.ru/comm/2463. – Nazvanye s ekrana.
16. Ignatov O.M. Nasylnyczki zlochyny, shho vchynyayutsya pracivnykamy organiv vnutrishnix sprav Ukrayiny: kryminologichna xarakterystyka, determinaciya ta poperedzhennya: monografiya. Xarkiv: TOV «Format Plyus», 2008. 296 s.
17. Merzlov Yu.A. Krymynologycheskaya xarakterystyka y preduprezhdenye prestuplenyj, sovershaemix sotrudnykamy sluzhbi krymynalnoj mylycyy: avtoref. dys. ... kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.08. Omsk, 1998. 18 s.
  18. Varigyn A.N. Prestupnost sotrudnykov organov vnutrennyx del y vozdejstvye na neе: monografyya. Saratov, 2003. 224 s.
19. Novakov O.S. Klasyfikaciya motyviv zlochynnoyi povedinky pracivnykiv miliciyi u sferi sluzhbovoyi diyalnosti. Pravo i bezpeka. 2002. № 4, t.1. S.192—196.
20. Tarasov N.V. Prestuplenyya, sovershaemie sotrudnykamy mylycyy: krymynologycheskyj aspekt: avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.08. Moskva, 2000. 19 s.
21. Antonyan Yu.M., Emynov V.E. Lychnost prestupnyka. Krymynologo-psyxologycheskoe yssledovanye. Moskva: Norma; Ynfra-M, 2010. 368 s.
22. Antonyan Yu.M., Enykeev M.Y., Emynov V.E. Psyxologyya prestupnyka y rassledovanye prestuplenyj. Moskva: Yuryst, 1996. 336 s.
23. Antonyan Yu.M. Krymynologyya: yzbrannie lekcyy. Moskva: Logos, 2004. 448 s.
24. Maslou A. Motyvacyya y lychnost. 3-e yzd. Sankt-Peterburg: Pyter, 2006. 352 s.
25. Psyxologiya osobystosti: slovnyk-dovidnyk / za red. P.P. Gornostaya, T.M. Tytarenko. Kyiv: Ruta, 2001. 320 s.
26. Voloshok O. V. Psyxologichnyj analiz problemy tryvozhnosti osobystosti / Problemy suchasnoyi psyxologiyi. 2010. № 10. S. 120—128.
27. Luneev V.V. Motyvacyya prestupnogo povedenyya. Moskva: Nauka, 1991. 383 c.
28. Bodryjyar Zh. Obshhestvo potreblenyya. Ego myfi y strukturi / Zh. Bodryjyar; per. s fr. E.A. Samarskoj. Moskva: Respublyka; Kulturnaya revolyucyya, 2006. 269 s.
29. Rubynshtejn S.L. Chelovek y myr / Metodologycheskye y teoretycheskye problemi psyxologyy. Moskva, 1969. S. 348—374.
30. Podilchak O.M. Motyvy ta motyvaciya zlochyniv, uchynenyx zhinkamy: dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.08. Podilchak Olga Mykolayivna; Nacionalna yurydychna akademiya imeni Yaroslava Mudrogo. Xarkiv, 2004. 237 s.
31. Saxnik O.V. Profesijno-psyxologichna pidgotovka personalu Derzhavnoyi penitenciarnoyi sluzhby Ukrayiny yak zasib zabezpechennya jogo osobystoyi bezpeky ta nadijnosti / Yurydychna psyxologiya ta pedagogika. 2014. №1. S. 106–114.
32. Danshyn I.M. Ustaleni formy zlochynnosti: (kryminologichnyj narys). Xarkiv: Akta, 2002. 110 s.
33. Kryminologichni zasady zapobigannya zlochynam korupcijnoyi spryamovanosti u penitenciarnij systemi Ukrayiny: navch. posib. / I.G. Bogatyrov, O.G. Kolb, V.O. Lysenko; za zag. red. O.G. Kolba. Kyiv: Dakor, 2014. 196 s.
34. Rejsmen V. M. Skritaya lozh. Vzyatky: «krestovie poxodi» y reformi: perevod s anglyjskogo / pod obshh. red. y so vstup. st. A. M. Yakovleva. Moskva: Progress, 1988. 328 s.
  35. Vyrok Berezanskogo miskogo sudu Kyivskoyi oblasti: Sprava № 356/1372/13-k [Elektronnyj resurs] // Yedynyj derzhavnyj reyestr sudovyx rishen: sajt. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/55928053 (data zvernennya: 05.12.17). Nazva z ekrana.
36. Vyrok Radomyshlskogo rajonnogo sudu Zhytomyrskoyi oblasti: Sprava № 1-kp/289/121/13 [Elektronnyj resurs] // Yedynyj derzhavnyj reyestr sudovyx rishen: sajt. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/37407373 (data zvernennya: 05.12.17). Nazva z ekrana.
37. Vyrok Kominternivskogo rajonnogo sudu m. Xarkova: Sprava №641/4830/16-k [Elektronnyj resurs] // Yedynyj derzhavnyj reyestr sudovyx rishen: sajt. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/59250070 (data zvernennya: 05.12.17). Nazva z ekrana.
38. Vyrok Perevalskogo rajonnogo sudu Luganskoyi oblasti: Sprava № 422/1750/14-k [Elektronnyj resurs] // Yedynyj derzhavnyj reyestr sudovyx rishen: sajt. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/38708248 (data zvernennya: 05.12.17). Nazva z ekrana.
39. Krajnyk G.S. Motyvy zlochyniv, vchyneni z neoberezhnosti / Yurydychna Ukrayina. 2014. № 12. S. 65—70.
40. Vyrok Kivercivskogo rajonnogo sudu Volynskoyi oblasti: Sprava № 0305/559/2012. Provadzhennya № 1/0305/69/2012 [Elektronnyj resurs] // Yedynyj derzhavnyj reyestr sudovyx rishen: sajt. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/22598942 (data zvernennya: 05.12.17). Nazva z ekrana.
41. Vyrok Krasnoluczkogo miskogo sudu Luganskoyi oblasti: Sprava №413/1564/13-k [Elektronnyj resurs] // Yedynyj derzhavnyj reyestr sudovyx rishen: sajt. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/38110291 (data zvernennya: 05.12.17). Nazva z ekrana.
42. Vyrok Torezkogo miskogo sudu Doneczkoyi oblasti: Sprava № 247/3662/13-k [Elektronnyj resurs] // Yedynyj derzhavnyj reyestr sudovyx rishen: sajt. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/36805990 (data zvernennya: 05.12.17). Nazva z ekrana. 
 
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh


-
English French German Polish Romanian Russian Ukrainian
2019
May
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Національний розвиток держави і права повинен ґрунтуватися, у першу чергу, на:
 
На Вашу думку чи забезпечують реалізацію принципу верховенства права законодавчі реформи 2019 року?
 
Система Orphus
Повну відповідальність за зміст опублікованих тез доповідей несуть автори, рецензенти та структурні підрозділи вищих навчальних закладів та наукових установ, які рекомендували їх до друку.

Лічильники і логотипи

Актуальна Юриспруденція