Addition of punishments

Author:

Stepashin V. M.1

Affiliation:

1. Dostoevsky Omsk State University

Abstract

Introduction. They complete and specify the rules for assigning the final penalty for both single crimes and for the totality of crimes and sentences of the prescriptions of Articles 71-72.1 of the Criminal Code, the content of the provisions of which is much broader than the names of the articles themselves. The logical sequence of the presentation of regulatory requirements in these articles is flawed.The method and the basic algorithm for determining the final penalty when adding punishments. The final punishment for two types of plurality - the totality of crimes and sentences – is determined by the rules of Articles 69-72 of the Criminal Code, which establishes: (a) a method for determining the final punishment (absorption, full or partial addition); (b) a basic algorithm for determining the final penalty when adding punishments imposed for individual crimes; (c) differentiated limits of the final punishment.Rules for adding punishments. Article 71 of the Criminal Code details the rules for adding individual punishments, different in appearance: (a) by transferring to a single more severe type of punishment; (b) by their independent execution (thereby - only a complete addition).The proportions by which the replacement is made are chosen arbitrarily, and in some cases, contrary to the intention of the legislator, it is even possible to mitigate the punishment instead of tightening it. There is an obvious need for scientific substantiation of such coefficients, taking into account, at least, the political and social significance of deprivation and restrictions that determine the qualitative indicator of the repressiveness of punishment, their consequences (primarily legal and economic) both for the convict himself and for society, which is the subject of independent research. The legislator has not strictly observed the principle of the arrangement of types of punishments depending on their severity and severity. The problem lies in the fact that all the rules for the application of punishment (sentencing, replacement of punishment with a stricter one, release from serving a sentence) proceed from the presumption of an indisputable and accurate classification of punishments according to their severity. The above fully applies to the provisions of Articles 69-72 of the Criminal Code. Part 2 of Article 71 excludes the first stage of the addition of individual punishments, different in type, namely their transfer (recalculation) to another type of punishment. In such cases, independent execution of the relevant measures is provided. The legislator has avoided developing a set of rules defining the independent execution of punishments imposed by the court without bringing them to a single form. In fact, Part 2 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code presents only some special cases of this type of addition of punishments, but even they suffer from incompleteness.Addition of punishments with their independent execution. It would be preferable to reflect in Part 2 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code all the existing rules for the addition of individual punishments involving the independent execution of the measures-components: (1) additional punishments of different types; (2) basic and additional punishments of different types; (3) basic and additional punishments of the same type; (4) real for the execution of punishment and suspended sentence; real for the execution of punishment and punishment, the execution of which is postponed; two or more sentences with a suspended sentence; sentences with a suspended sentence and with a suspended sentence; (5) basic or additional punishments of the same type, if the characteristics of the repressiveness of the penalties determined by the court are fundamentally different, in particular, the consequences of evasion from serving the sentence.Conclusions. The current rules for adding and determining the final terms (sizes) of punishment are desystematized, fragmentary and do not always correspond to the elementary canons of legislative technique, their very presentation in the Criminal Code is rather chaotic. They do not fully take into account the peculiarities of the construction of the punishment system and its shortcomings, general and special rules for the appointment of punishments and other measures of criminal responsibility.

Publisher

Dostoevsky Omsk State University

Reference30 articles.

1. Yegorova T.I. Justice of punishment: theoretical format and law enforcement practice. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 2021, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 984–1002. DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2021.411. (In Russ.).

2. Brester A.A., Yurishina E.A. Criteria underlying decision-making on punishment: an empirical analysis of law enforcement practice. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 2018, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 535–553. DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2018.406. (In Russ.).

3. Brilliantov A.V. Problems of assigning punishment based on the totality of sentences. Rossiiskoe pravosudie = Russian Justice, 2006, no. 2, pp. 58–65. (In Russ.).

4. Tarbagaev A.N. Hasty and rash liberalization of sentencing based on the totality of crimes. Vestnik Rossiiskoi pravovoi akademii = Bulletin of the Russian Legal Academy, 2005, no. 1, pp. 70–72. (In Russ.).

5. Chernenko T.G., Suvorova N.V. On some issues of assigning punishment based on the totality of sentences. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Kemerovo State University, 2013, no. 3-1 (55), pp. 302–406. (In Russ.).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3