Mistakes of Law: Types and Its Effect to Negate the State of Mind Requirement
( Pp. 212-217)

Abstract: The purpose of the research is to classify mistakes of law depending on their impact on mens rea and culpability. Based on the analysis of legal norms, theoretical provisions and judicial practice, controversial issues of using the presumption of a knowledge about wrongfulness are identified, as well as the possibility of refuting this presumption. This is necessary because a person’s misconceptions regarding the content of the criminal law are structural elements of mens rea. As a consequence, they must be considered mitigating circumstances or defenses. Results. The author proves that mistakes of law should be considered as excusable (excluding guilt) or non-excusable (constituting guilt), depending on the type of criminal law prohibition. For malum in se crimes, the presumption of knowledge of the law is reasonable. Here, only partial mistakes of law are possible, which can be considered as mitigating circumstances. or malum prohibitum crimes, mistakes of law can be considered not only as mitigating circumstances, but also as defenses in the event that the person’s act either did not cause objective harm at all, or if there was nothing subject to social criticism in the person’s behavior.

Korableva S.Yu. Mistakes of Law: Types and Its Effect to Negate the State of Mind Requirement // Gaps in Russian Legislation. 2023. Vol. 16. №6. Pp. 212-217. (in Russ.). EDN: MAGXBZ

Goloskokov L. V. Prezumptsiya znaniya zakona v svete teorii setevogo prava // YUridicheskaya tekhnika. 2007. № 1. S. 192 202.
Goryachev I. N. O statisticheskikh osnovaniyakh deystviya prezumptsii znaniya zakona v ugolovnom prave Rossii // YUridicheskaya tekhnika. 2010. № 4. C. 130 144.
Dorogin D. A. Raznovidnosti yuridicheskoi oshibki, isklyuchayushchei ugolovnuyu otvetstvennost // Lex Russica. 2019. № 8 (153). S. 74 85.
Ivanov A. G. Sub ektivnaya oshibka v ugolovno-pravovoy strukture viny: sravnitel nyy analiz zakonodatel stva stran Evropy i Rossii // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo. 2022. № 3. S. 113 118.
Korablyeva S. YU. Vina v ugolovno-pravovoy teorii i praktike zarubezhnykh stran : Monografiya. M.: RUSAYNS, 2020. 160 s.
Laykova E. A. Sub ektivnye priznaki sostavov prestupleniy, predusmotrennykh stat yami 3222, 3223 Ugolovnogo kodeksa RF // Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. 2017. № 3. S. 54 59.
Levchenko V. B., Starostin S. A. Zakreplenie prezumptsii nevinovnosti v sisteme printsipov zakonodatel stva ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh // CHelovek: prestuplenie i nakazanie. 2016. № 4 (95). S. 16 20.
Morgunov S. V., SHatilovich S. N. Algoritm razgranicheniya sostavov protivopravnykh deyaniy protiv poryadka osushchestvleniya migratsionnogo ucheta (stat ya 19.27 KoAP RF i stat ya 3223 UK RF) // YUridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitel naya praktika. 2016. № 1 (35). S. 106 116.
Rakhmanin S. V. Problema oproverzhimosti prezumptsii znaniya zakona i yuridicheskaya oshibka v ugolovnom prave // Pravo i politika. 2019. № 3. S. 41 46.
SHatilovich S. N. Otvetstvennost za prestupleniya, predusmotrennye stat ey 322. 2 UK RF: voprosy teorii i praktiki // YUridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitel naya praktika. 2016. № 4 (38). S. 60 65.
SHiryaev A. YU. Problema otsenki umyshlennoy viny v svete ucheniya o yuridicheskoy oshibke // Rossiyskoe pravo: obrazovanie, praktika, nauka. 2020. № 6. S. 49 55.
Gray R. L. (1995) Eliminating the (Absurd) Distinction Between Malum In Se and Malum Prohibitum Crimes. Washington University Law Review, vol. 73, no. 3, p. 1369 1398.

legitimately mistaken, mistake of law, knowledge of the law, mens rea, criminal defenses, presumption..