ARMAN BABAKHANYAN

Assistant to the Judge of the Criminal Chamber of the RA Cassation Court,

Lecturer at YSU Chair of Criminal Law

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.10-12-38

Annotation.

The article is dedicated to some issues of legislative fixation of the terms characterizing the criminal subculture, the reference to which is of essential importance during the study of the issues related to the criminal legal norms necessary to fight against the criminal subculture.

In particular, in the article, the author referred to the question of the relationship between the subculture described in Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia and the criminal subculture. As a result, the author came to the conclusion that these terms are not equivalent and these subcultures are related as whole and part.

In addition, the author, developing the previously expressed positions, found that at the legislative level, it is permissible not only to use terms characterizing the status of members of the thieves’ world but also to use other terms used in the thieves’ world. At the same time, the author has made an attempt to clarify the limits of the admissibility of the use of thieves’ speech, the terms used in the thief’s world, at the legislative level, finding that their use is permissible only as the last, exceptional measure (ultima ratio), when there are no terms expressing the essence of the phenomena and statuses related to the criminal subculture in the literary speech, and only in the case when these terms do not demean the honor and dignity of a person.

PDF