Criminology, like every science, goes through a number of stages in its development. We know classical criminology, positivism, critical criminology.

Postmodern criminology is a new stage in the development of criminology. "Crime" appears in society since the formation of the state. In primitive society, people also killed each other, raped women, fought, "stealed" pieces of food. But there was no "crime" because there was no state and no criminal law

After the birth of statehood and the emergence of criminal law, and consequently, "crime", for several thousand years, disputes on the topic of crime and counteracting it (including through punishment) have not stopped. The current stage of these discussions is related to the fact that since the end of the last century, humanity has been living in a new, not quite familiar postmodern society (postclassical, post-postmodern). Its features (globalization, mass migration, digitalization and virtualization, fragmentation, schizophrenia of consciousness, etc. Actively influence all social processes, including crime and ideas about it [1].

Most often, attention is paid to the change in crime itself - its globalization (illegal worldwide trade in drugs, weapons, people, and human organs), the emergence of new types of crimes (cybercrime). It is less often noticed that the perception of crime also changes. The strong fragmentation of society, its division into numerous "fragments" (according to age, gender, ethnicity, confessional and other criteria), leads to very different ideas of "fragments" about what is permitted and unacceptable. So, for young people and some "bohemian" groups, the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances is common, and freedom of sexual relations is common. Older age groups (including many legislators) consider this unacceptable and "criminal". Even less often, an objective change in the consequences of punishments for crimes is noticed. When determining the terms of imprisonment, it is necessary to take into account the "acceleration of time". If 20-30 years ago, after serving a 5-10-year term, a person returned to his usual environment, today he finds himself in an unusual world in which it is difficult for him to adapt.

The ideas of world postmodern criminology have been actively developed by domestic authors for more than a decade [2-7]. The development and transformation of criminology is strongly influenced by the achievements of modern sciences about a person and his activity - genetics, physiology, psychology, economics, etc. (see, for example [7]. The achievements of postmodern criminology, in turn, cannot but influence the development of related disciplines, and above all deviantology - the sociology of deviant manifestations (crime, drug addiction, drunkenness, prostitution, suicide, etc.).

The author further outlines his understanding of the main concepts of criminology in the postmodern era.

The still generally accepted idea of crime as a deviation from the norm runs into the paradoxical statement of the famous E. Durkheim, who declared a century and a half ago: “Crime is a normal phenomenon because a society without crime is absolutely impossible” [8]. However, reasonable (from a modern point of view) ideas about what “crimes” are sounded before. So, according to B. Spinoza, “in the state of nature one cannot imagine a crime; it is possible only in a civil state, where by common agreement it is determined what is good and what is bad, and where everyone must obey the state. Thus, a crime is nothing else than disobedience, punishable as a result of this only according to state law” [9]. Only certain acts fall into the criminal law, not so much by “general agreement”, but by the will of the head of state and his entourage. Later, and more precisely, P. Sorokin wrote about this: “There is not a single act that, by its very content, would be a criminal offense; and acts of murder and salvation, truth and lies, theft and gift, enmity and love, sexual unbridledness and abstinence, etc. - all these acts could be and were both a crime and not a crime in various codes, depending on who committed them, against whom they were committed, under what conditions they occurred. Therefore, count those   or other acts by their very content to criminal offenses ... a hopeless task” [10].

In modern criminology, the recognition of crime as a social construction came relatively late, but today it is shared by most criminologists [11-16]. This is clearly formulated by the German criminologists H. Hess and S. Scheerer: crime is not an ontological phenomenon, but a mental construct that has a historical and changeable character [17]. The understanding of crime as social constructs is substantiated in detail, and the process of such construction is considered in the Oxford Handbook of Criminology [18].

So, “the term crime is a label that we apply to behavior that breaks the law. The key point is the generation of crimes by the criminal law, which is created by people. Crime as such does not exist in nature; it is an invention of people” [19]. Over the past decades, it has become clear to most criminologists: in reality, there is no object that would be "crime" in its objective content.

Crime and criminality are relative and conventional concepts (as legislators agree). They are social constructs that only partly reflect certain social realities. Yes, some people kill each other, take away other people's property as a result of robbery. But actions of the same content may not be recognized as "crimes". So, intentionally causing death to another person is murder, a serious crime (Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). But intentionally causing death to another person (people) is a feat in a war! These same actions are the professional paid activities of the executioner in those countries where, unfortunately, the death penalty has been preserved. And this is not a feat and not a crime, if committed in a state of necessary defense. And the intentional infliction of death on another person at the request of this person is either legal euthanasia (in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada etc.), or a serious crime (Russia, etc.).

The consumption of cannabis derivatives (marijuana) is legalized in most countries of Europe, South America, Canada and Australia, but criminalized in Russia. And appearing in a public place with a bottle of alcohol in the UAE is a serious crime.

Excessive criminalization of acts that objectively do not pose a serious danger turns every citizen of the country into a potential criminal.

What the state / authority considers “criminal” is constantly being done in the process of people’s life to satisfy their needs – in food, warmth, well-being, sex, self-affirmation, self-realization… And in this sense, crime, as E. Durkheim argued, is really normal phenomenon. Therefore, "crime" was, is and will be as long as the state exists.

Perhaps the most prominent representative of German criminal law, Professor H.-H. Jescheck, who proposed to abolish criminal legislation as incompatible with human and civil rights [20] was right? Yes, today not a single state is ready for this. But it's worth thinking about…

What is the basis for the criminalization of certain acts? Why are some acts criminalized (recorded, included in the criminal law) in some states, and other acts in others? Why in the same state, over time, some acts are criminalized, while others are decriminalized? Two Russian criminologists I. Kozachenko and D. Sergeev, as a result of a thorough analysis of changes in the criminal legislation of many countries over many years, concluded: "The main myth of criminalization is the possibility of building its rational model" [21]. There are no objective grounds for the criminalization of acts. The only "reason" for criminalization is as the authorities, the regime, want.

Of course, many acts are criminalized taking into account the opinion of the population. Indeed, murders, rapes, robberies, etc. are dangerous (“criminal”), and their subjects deserve punishment, according to the majority of the population. However, there are no objective grounds for the criminalization of many acts.

Postmodernism in criminology reasonably considers crime as a product of power in order to limit other individuals who are not affiliated with power in their desire to overcome social inequality, to behave differently than prescribed by power.

In other words, power (regime):

• Decides (through the legislature) what exactly here and now should be considered a crime;
• Convinces the population (through the media, parliamentary debates, speeches of politicians) of the expediency and usefulness of just such a criminal law;
• Carries out “correct” law enforcement activities through law enforcement agencies and criminal justice.

The main "cause" of crime is the will of the authorities, the regime, reflected in the criminal law. But knowing what acts are recognized by the authorities, the regime as criminal, it is possible to study the factors that act (influence) on their structure, level, dynamics. These are criminogenic factors. There are many of them - economic, political, cultural and even cosmic [22].

One of the most significant factors is social and economic inequality.

Modern humanity and the population of each country is divided into a minority included in active economic, political, cultural life and the majority excluded from it. In 2015, for the first time in the history of mankind, 1% of the population had 50% of all wealth (according to Credit Suisse).

In that world, 3.4 billion people (46% of the total population) cannot meet the basic needs of life. Over 1.9 billion people on the planet (26% of the population) live in extreme poverty. “The opposition between the excluded and the included is key” [23]. And it is the excluded who turn out to be the main subject of crimes. Just one example: according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, among all those convicted of crimes, the proportion of people “without a permanent source of income” (an analogue of those excluded) is 65-67%, and among those convicted of murder and rape - 72-75%.

But the same factors - economic, political, cultural and even cosmic influence the state and dynamics of suicides, drug use, prostitution and ... creativity.  ?reativity is also a "deviation" from the usual behavior. And the reaction of the state to geniuses may be the same as to criminals... A classic example is the fate of Socrates, who was sentenced to death. And also burnt at the stake Giordano Bruno, Servet, Jan Hus. And hundreds (thousands) of writers, scientists, poets, designers who were destroyed in Hitler's and Stalin's concentration camps.

People can act both legally and in violation of the law to satisfy their needs. And economic, social, political, cultural factors, acting on people, can turn out to be criminogenic, narco-genic, suicidal, and creative-genic and ... "general".

One of the usual topics of Russian criminology is "the personality of the criminal". Meanwhile, there is no special "personality of the criminal". We can talk about the personality of A. who committed the murder, about the personality of B. who committed the rape, about the personality of the thief C. But there is no "personality of the criminal" different from all other people. Anyone can commit what the criminal law calls a "crime." A. Rybak is right: "In criminology ... it is necessary to finally, categorically abandon the doctrine of the identity of the criminal" [7].

With the beginning of the postmodern era comes the realization of the "crisis of punishment". Punishment, designed to act as a deterrent and reduce crime, turns out to be ineffective, does not achieve its goals!

This is justifiably said by domestic authors. Just one example: “The implementation of the criminal law can become completely unbearable for society, blocking other social processes… Punishment is an obvious cost and an implicit benefit… One should take into account the well-known properties of criminal law, which consist in the fact that it is an extremely costly and very dangerous means. impact on social relations” [4].

Punishment in Russia, as in other countries, does not achieve any of the goals listed in Part 2 of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Let's consider them in order.

Goal ?1: Achieve social justice. But what is "social justice"? And from whose point of view? From the point of view of the victim? Guilty? Victim's relatives? Relatives of the defendant? After all, one of the features of postmodern society is its fragmentation. And each "fragment" has its own ideas of what is possible and what is not. And each side in the criminal process may have its own ideas about "fairness".

Goal ?2: Correction. Many experts believe that it is impossible to correct anyone by punishment - whether it is the punishment of a playful child, a hooligan schoolboy, a subordinate in the service, or a person who has committed a crime. Psychologists and educators know this well (but legislators “forget” it). If a crime is committed through negligence, then there is no one to “correct” at all. If it is committed intentionally, then the guilty person can “correct” himself (repentance, awareness of the wrongness of the committed), or under the influence of relatives, friends, comrades. But it may not "fix". If punishment is in the form of deprivation of liberty, then in no way in Russian and similar prisons or colonies with their terrible conditions of detention. Yes, in the prisons of Finland, Norway, and Sweden, they try to use non-repressive methods of resocialization, re-adaptation, and correction [24]. But even in this case, it is not so much about "correction" as about help and possible refraining from new crimes.

Goal ?3: Prevention of new crimes. Criminologists distinguish between general prevention (prevention of all potential crimes) and special prevention (prevention of new crimes by those who have already committed a crime and convicted). As the entire historical experience of mankind testifies, both a general warning (people have committed, are committing and will commit what is called “crimes”) and a special warning are ineffective. Interestingly, the tougher, the more repressive the penitentiary system, the higher the proportion of recidivism. Thus, in the United States, with a rigid penitentiary system, the share of recidivism among all those who committed crimes is 50–60%, and in liberal Norway it is less than 20%. In Russia, the recidivism rate increased from 20.9% in 1994 to 57.7% in 2020, which once again demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the special warning.

Therefore, the punishment does not fulfill any of the assigned tasks. In general, “the system of criminal law operating in modern conditions ... is not capable of realizing the declared goals, which in many countries is frankly defined as a crisis of criminal justice” [4].

Of course, the very proclamation of certain acts as criminal, the very potential possibility of being punished for their commission, is to some extent (small) deterrent (a general warning). Refuse in principle from the system of criminal law and punishment for dangerous acts, modern society, the state cannot (not ready). But then the problem arises of (a) the validity of criminalization, classifying certain really dangerous acts as “criminal” and (b) optimizing the system of punishments, minimizing their harmful consequences. The goal is to reduce the harm from punishment.

We can talk about the practical implementation of the task of reducing the harm from punishment for a long time, the author will limit himself to brief theses.

First, the death penalty is murder by the state, completely unacceptable and subject to abolition. Long-term practice has shown that the application of the death penalty not only does not prevent the gravest crimes, but, on the contrary, contributes to their commission, accustoming citizens to the low value of life.

For example, in Austria, Argentina and a number of other countries, after the abolition of the death penalty, the number of crimes for which it could be imposed did not increase, but decreased. In 1965, a unique experiment was carried out in Great Britain - a moratorium on the death penalty for 5 years. As a result, the number of crimes for which the death penalty was imposed before the moratorium did not increase, and the death penalty was abolished. In Russia, the last death sentence was carried out in 1997, and from 2001 to 2021, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the murder rate (per 100,000 population) decreased from 23.1 to 5.0 (4.6 times).

Secondly, the use of deprivation of liberty must be kept to a minimum. It can be applied, as a rule, only for violent crimes and only in relation to adults. So, in Japan, only 3.5% of all convicts are sentenced to imprisonment, 85% to a fine.

Thirdly, the terms of imprisonment generally should not exceed 2-3 years. Thus, in most countries of Northern and Western Europe, the term of imprisonment is often calculated in weeks and months (and not decades!). In 2016, according to the data presented at the European Conference of Criminologists, the average term of imprisonment in European countries did not exceed 1 year 8 months. And the term of imprisonment in Japan generally did not exceed 2 years [25].

And, fourthly, and most importantly, the conditions for serving a sentence of deprivation of liberty should not be repressive in nature, but should be aimed at resocializing convicts, raising their educational level, teaching them new professions or raising their professional level. Prisoners must live in normal conditions, be provided with quality food, modern medical care, and the opportunity to use modern technical means (telephone, computer). Deprivation of liberty in itself is a severe punishment and it should not be aggravated by repressive measures.

More often, punishments that are not related to deprivation of liberty can be applied - a fine, restriction of liberty, etc.

The general historical trend of social control of crime is as follows:

• Reducing the number of acts prohibited under pain of criminal punishment;
• Liberalization of means and methods of punishment. The “era of mercy” is still very far away, but the vector of changes leads precisely to it.

But what about crime prevention, the reader asks? Yes, the prevention of crimes remains among the privileged areas. But by what means? To what extent? In recent years, a dilemma has arisen in postmodern society: security measures vs human rights and freedoms. The technical possibilities of constant monitoring of each person force us to take a critical view of the immense “prevention”, which may turn out to be worse than the crime against which it is directed.

So, postmodern criminology seeks to abandon the usual illusions about both crimes, and the grounds for criminalization, and punishment. This should entail fundamental changes in the criminal policy of states. In a number of countries (primarily in Northern Europe), this is already happening, but, unfortunately, not in all. However, "the mole of history digs slowly but thoroughly"...

1. Gilinsky Ya. Deviance in postmodern society. St. Petersburg: Aletheya. 2017.
2. Gilinsky Ya. Criminology: Theory, history, empirical base, social control. St. Petersburg: Alef-Press. 2018.
3. Gilinsky Ya. Postmodern criminology (neocriminology). St. Petersburg: Aletheya. 2021.
4. Zhalinsky AE. Criminal law in anticipation of change. Theoretical and instrumental analysis. 2009.
5. Zhmurov DV. Criminology in the postmodern era. Looking for new answers. Irkutsk: Reprocenter. 2012.
6. Ismailov RN. Criminology in postmodern society. St. Petersburg: Alef-Press. 2018.
7. Rybak AZ. Criminology in the human dimension. Moscow: Yurlitinform. 2020.
8. Durkheim E. Norm and pathology. Sociology of Crime (Modern Bourgeois Theories). Digest of articles. Moscow: Progress. 1966.
9. Spinoza B. Selected Works. - Moskow: Gospolitizdat. 1957.
10. Sorokin P. Man. Civilization. Society. Moscow: Politizdat. 1992.
11. Barkan S. Criminology: A Sociological Understanding. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.1997.
12. De Keseredy W, Schwartz M. Contemporary Criminology. Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1996.
13. Constructing Crime. Ed. by Ch. Gregoriou. Palgrave Macmillan. 2012.
14. Hester S, Eglin P. Sociology of Crime. New York–London: Routledge. 1992.
15. The Problem of Crime.1996.
16. Young J. The Vertigo of Late Modernity. SAGE Publications. 2007
17. Hess H, Scheerer S. Was ist Kriminalitat? Kriminologische Journal. Heft 2:1997; 83-155.
18. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 2007.
19. Robinson M. Why Crime? An integrated Systems Theory of antisocial Behavior. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2004.
20. Jescheck HH. Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil. 4 Aufl. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.1988.
21. Kozachenko I, Sergeev D. New criminalization. Yekaterinburg: SAPIENTIA. 2020.
22. Chizhevsky AL. Cosmic pulse of life: Earth in the arms of the Sun. Heliotaraxia. Moscow: Mysl. (In Russ.). 1995.
23. Zizek S. Reflections in red. Moscow: Europe. 2011.
24. From «prison country» to a limited pain society: the Finnish experience of prison reduction. Comp. Yasaveev. Helsinki: NIIPP. 2012.
25. Kan Ueda. Crime and criminology in contemporary Japan. Moscow: Progress.1989.
26. The Sociology of Crime and Deviance.1995.