Is The Criminology of Postmodernity at a Dead End?

The article is a reaction to various ideas regarding the contemporary criminology of postmodernity as presented in research publications. The author shows the progressive character of contemporary global criminology of postmodernity (neocriminology being, according to the author, its Russian version). Its key clauses are examined: there are no actions whose content is criminal; there are no objective reasons to criminalize actions; the only real reason for criminalization is the volition of the authorities, the regime; there is no special «criminal personality»; the punishment does not reach the goals set for it. «Public danger» cannot serve as a basis for criminalization as there is no definition of the very concept of «public danger» — it can be understood differently by different subjects, and there is no possibility for determining the degree of «public danger». Due to this, different states at different times included different actions into their criminal law, designating them as «criminal» It is not accidental that most modern states do not provide any references to any “grounds” for criminalization, but suggest that a crime is what is written in the criminal law of a country. The article stresses the global character of the criminology of postmodernity which reflects the features of contemporary society (postmodern, or postclassical). The author presents arguments for opposing the opinion of some Russian criminologists who talk about the “dead end” of the global criminology of postmodernity.