In various systems of criminal law, the problem of sentencing for several crimes committed and the question of the limit of punishment is solved in different ways. One of the options recognized in the criminal law of many states is a combination of crimes, which includes special principles of sentencing.
A similar system has been used for a long time, since the time of Roman law. In those days, there was such a thing as “poena major absorbet poenam minorem”, meaning that less punishment is absorbed by more. That is, the totality of crimes provides for a number of crimes committed the only punishment relating to the most serious of them. Many forensics have repeatedly pointed out the imperfection of such a system, believing that a sentence imposed on the principle of “seven troubles - one answer” is ineffective. A criminal who has committed several criminal acts is absolutely indifferent to their number, he is especially indifferent to those crimes that caused minimal evil. Many believe that, in fact, the killer criminal, who also committed theft and theft, is not responsible for the last named actions.
So, the totality of crimes is the commission by one person of several homogeneous, identical, as well as heterogeneous crimes, simultaneously or sequentially. It is understood that the person has not yet been punished for any of them. All crimes committed can be qualified either by several independent articles, or by different parts of one of the articles, or by one article of the Criminal Code.
Along with the legal concept itself, there is a division into types of aggregate crimes. In accordance with the new approach to the concept of totality, the following two varieties are distinguished in the criminal law of the Russian Federation. The first of them is the totality of crimes qualified by a single article of the Criminal Code; the second - crimes, qualified by several articles (parts of the article).
In the theory of criminal law and in existing judicial practice, two subspecies of the totality of crimes are distinguished: ideal and real. It is customary to talk about an ideal totality in those cases when one or another subject, when performing one action (inaction), performs two or more separate elements of a crime. Example: intentional homicide in relation to one person, while injuring by negligence of the second victim. The main features of an ideal combination of crimes include their simultaneity.
It is customary to talk about the real totality if each individual crime is final, or if one of the crimes is considered preparation for the commission of another, more serious act. In a real population, a person can be either a performer or an accomplice, an instigator or an organizer of a crime. Example: a citizen attacked another person with the aim of stealing a cell phone, and a little later during the arrest he resisted police officers with the use of violence dangerous to health and life. These actions are qualified in aggregate by two articles: No. 161, part 1, and No. 318, part 2.
Along with the aggregate, another type of crime is considered, having some similarities with the indicated concept - a continuing crime. This is a series of identical homogeneous actions of a criminal nature, which are aimed at achieving a single goal. Ongoing crimes are often confused with the ideal combination, however, they differ by the main feature - the time of the act. If, with the perfect combination, as already mentioned, crimes are committed at the same time, then a continued crime can be committed over a long time period. Example: a person decided to assemble a television set on his own at home. Since the citizen’s place of work is a television equipment factory, for some time he stole the necessary details from the place of work. The beginning of this continued crime is the fact of the first theft, by analogy, the end of the crime is the last theft from the factory.