Collision of Criminal Law Norms and Classifying Crimes

The Russian Federation Criminal Code specifies the elements of crimes reflecting every case and those reflecting certain cases of committing the same crime. In the former case the elements are represented under a standard form and the latter in a special one. However, the coexistence of special and general norms has a rationale if the special role influences the decision on criminal liability compared with the general norm. When the Russian Criminal Code deals with the elements which are instrumental to impose the liability for certain committed crimes, any such a case of which is involved in other cases, thus the common norm excludes what is included in the special one. The idea behind such exclusion/ inclusion is that it is necessary o differentiate (change, mitigate or increase) the punishment for a crime considering its public danger. As a result, the answer is given to the question why legislators prioritize the special norm though the common one could be an option as well. In this way, court may impose on the guilty another (enhanced or mitigated) punishment. Thus, the cases specified in common or specific parts do not compete. The article analyzes the collision of the norms in criminal law and the rules of classifying crimes if necessary. The arguments are given for the lawfulness to specify the collision in criminal law when classifying crimes. Among all the types of this collision, the author admits the existence of only two in criminal law, i. e. competition of common and special norms and the competition of part and parcel. Rules are given of qualifying crimes when rivaling common and special norms. Rules of qualifying are made up concerning part and parcel. A suggestion is expressed that practice of applying criminal law and its further development require improvements.