“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 37 (2026), pages 633–640.
DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2026-37-633-640
Gatseliuk Vitalii
On the relevance of the analysis of criminalization processes in the context of criminal policy using the example of the decriminalization of petty theft
ISSN online: 2617-9776 print: 0869-2491
In order to determine the relevance of theoretical approaches to understanding the processes of (de)criminalization of socially dangerous acts in the context of criminal policy, the article analyzes the consequences of decriminalization of petty theft of property using an anthropological approach to criminalization. It is noted that the analysis of the criminalization of socially dangerous acts as a result of law-making
activity quite often lacks an umbrella view. As a result, important aspects may fall out of the researcher's field of vision, which will cast doubt on the validity of the research results.
Criminalization of socially dangerous acts is, firstly, a type of interference (the most intense) in human freedom, and, secondly, a form of law-making (in the sense of law in its objective understanding as rules of behavior expressed outwardly in the form of regulatory legal acts). At the same time, another important dimension of understanding criminalization can be its analysis as a component of criminal policy (which covers a much wider range of issues than the multiplication of the number of prohibitions and lawmaking processes), which will add to the content of criminalization the necessary features of goal-setting and justification. At the same time, the application of the criminal policy paradigm makes it possible to rationalize "quasi-criminalization" practices, when, at the expense of formally non-criminal legal means, the state establishes restrictions that are criminal in essence or, conversely, decriminalizes certain forms of behavior. As an example, the situation with the decriminalization of petty theft of property by Law No. 3886-IX is analyzed. It is concluded that the content of the relevant decision of the Supreme Court means that if the limit of criminal liability is determined by the number of certain "conditional" values, then changing this number (2, 3, 5 corresponding values) is a law on criminal liability, and changing the "quantitative content" of these values (from 100 hryvnias to 200 or vice versa) is not such a law, although in both cases the criminal punishability of certain behavior can equally change in one direction or another, and this indicates the need for further development of such a position.
Given the position already published on the feasibility of developing an anthropological understanding of criminalization processes, it is worth doctrinally strengthening this position of the Supreme Court and proposing legislative measures that would clearly allow considering as (de)criminalization any changes in legal regulation that de facto lead to a change in the range of criminally punishable acts and thus actually affect the freedom of the individual.
Keywords: criminalization of socially dangerous acts; criminal policy; petty theft of property.
References
1. Postanova Ob`iednanoi palaty Kasatsiinoho kryminalnoho sudu Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 07 zhovtnia 2024 roku u spravi № 278/1566/21 URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122302589 (data zvernennia 20.11.2025) (in Ukr.).
2. Davydenko V. L. Pidstavy ta pryntsypy kryminalizatsii diian proty vlasnosti. Pravo i suspilstvo. 2020. № 2, ch.
3. S. 23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32842/2078-3736/2020.2-3.3 (in Ukr.). 3. Rodger, J. J. (2008). The criminalisation of social policy. Criminal Justice Matters, 74(1), 18–19. P. 18. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09627250802478755 (data zvernennia 20.11.2025)
4. Tuliakov V. O. Matrytsia neokryminalizatsii: shliakhy optymizatsii kryminalno-pravovoho reahuvannia. Kontseptualni osnovy kryminalnoi zakonotvorchosti: materialy mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii (Odesa, 19 zhovt. 2017 r.). Odesa. 2017. C. 156–165 (in Ukr.).
5. Tymofeeva L. Yu. Krymynalyzatsyia y dekrymynalyzatsyia kak proiavlenye realyzatsyy pryntsypa humanyzma. Polityka v sferi borotby zi zlochynnistiu: materialy Mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. Internet-konferentsii. Ivano-Frankivsk. 2014. S. 179 (in Ukr.).
6. Jareborg, Nils. Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 2, no. 2 (2005), P. 524 URL: https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/72899 (data zvernennia 20.11.2025).
7. David Brown (2013) Criminalisation and Normative Theory, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 25(2), P. 612. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2013.12035986 (data zvernennia 20.11.2025).
8. Pantazis, C. (2008). The problem with criminalisation. Criminal Justice Matters, 74(1), 10–12. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09627250802476684 (data zvernennia 20.11.2025)
9. Hatseliuk V. O. Zasady doslidzhennia kryminalizatsii suspilno nebezpechnykh diian: antropolohichni vymiry metodolohii. Yevropeiski perspektyvy. 2024. №3. S. 26–34 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/ep.2024.3.4 (in Ukr.).
Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 19.11.2025
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 03.03.2026
Дата публікації: 24.03.2026