Public calls for Committing Acts of Terrorism, Public Justification of Terrorism and Propaganda of Terrorism: Correlation of the Concepts

The article presents a study of the correlation between the concepts of "public calls for committing acts of terrorism", "public justification of terrorism" and "propaganda of terrorism". The purpose of the article is a terminological analysis of the categories contained in Art. 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, their correlation and expression in law enforcement. For the terminological analysis, the author considers the chronological sequence of amendments made to Art. 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Further, an analysis of each act of the objective side used in the compositions of Art. 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is carried out by considering the definition of the term in the note to Art. 205.2 or the interpretation of the term given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The author provides a doctrinal interpretation of the terms "public calls for acts of terrorosm", "public justification of terrorism" and "propaganda of terrorism" from the criminal-legal, criminological and linguistic points of view. The terms "ideology", "inducement" and "persuasion" used in the literal and official interpretation of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are considered separately; inconsistency in the application of the terms "inducement" and "persuasion" is noted. The author provides information on the analysis of case materials under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, noting that convicts do not distinguish between radical ideologies and acts of the objective side of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, whereas according to the meaning of the law, this crime can only be committed with intent malice. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation notes that a comprehensive psychological and linguistic examination of cases of this category can be appointed in necessary cases; however, based on the conducted terminological analysis and analysis of law enforcement practice, the author notes the need for mandatory conduct of this examination in each specific case.