Annotation: The key problem in the qualification of crimes against life is the systemic complexity of differentiating murder committed in a state of affect (temporary insanity/passion) from intentional murder (including those motivated by revenge or committed during an altercation). In practice, the boundary between sudden intense mental agitation (physiological affect) and ordinary emotional excitement or planned intent often remains blurred. Mistakes by investigators and courts in assessing the duration of the psychotraumatic situation and the trigger actions of the victim lead either to unjustifiably harsh punishment for individuals acting in a state of affect, or, conversely, to the unwarranted mitigation of liability for intentional crimes. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive legal, psychological, and forensic analysis of the criteria for affected murder, identification of defects in judicial and investigative practice during its separation from related offenses, and the development of scientifically grounded recommendations for improving normative criteria for assessing sudden intense mental agitation. The study utilizes formal-dogmatic (normative), comparative-legal, and systemic-structural methods, along with a comprehensive analysis of judicial practice materials and the findings of forensic psychiatric and psychological examinations. The analysis revealed that courts often ignore the phenomenon of "cumulative affect" (aggression accumulated due to prolonged domestic violence), erroneously interpreting such actions as premeditated. The necessity of mandatory appointment of a comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination in all cases where the defendant claims disorientation of consciousness is substantiated. The practical significance lies in minimizing judicial errors in the qualification of violent crimes against life.

Annotation: The key problem of law enforcement in the qualification of violent crimes against personality is the vagueness of the criteria for differentiating torture (infliction of agony) from related offenses: systematic battery (beatings) and intentional infliction of light or medium harm to health. Changes in criminal legislation aimed at decriminilizing or re-criminalizing domestic violence have created legal conflicts. In practice, investigative bodies often substitute the article «Torture», which is difficult to prove, with simpler charges (battery), ignoring the systemic nature of the victim's mental and physical suffering. Conversely, one-time conflicts involving harm to health are erroneously interpreted as torture, leading to a violation of the principle of fairness of punishment. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive legal analysis of the disposition of the article «Torture», identification of the material and psychological criteria for its separation from battery and harm to health, and the development of clear methodical guidelines for judicial and investigative bodies on the qualification of systematic violence. The study utilizes the formal-dogmatic method (analysis of criminal law), the comparativelegal method, a systemic-structural approach, and content analysis of judicial practice materials and the findings of forensic medical and psychological examinations. The study proves that the key marker of torture is not just the frequency of actions, but a specific purpose – the infliction of deep mental suffering and establishing control over the victim. An author's algorithm for calculating «systematicity» is proposed. The necessity of mandatory forensic psychological examination to record moral damage in cases of torture is substantiated. The practical significance lies in developing recommendations that minimize investigative errors and enhance the legal protection of domestic violence victims.