EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC MONITORING COMMISSIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EPIDEMIC: SOME LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS

2021 ◽  
pp. 52-56
Author(s):  
Наталья Сергеевна Малолеткина
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Penal Institutions ◽  
Emergency Group ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Public Monitoring

Автором рассматривается проблема эффективности деятельности членов общественных наблюдательных комиссий в период эпидемии. Особое внимание уделяется правовой основе деятельности членов общественных наблюдательных комиссий в учреждениях уголовно-исполнительной системы с учетом имеющихся ограничений, связанных с эпидемией. Согласно ст. 85 УИК РФ возможно введение режима особых условий в исправительных учреждениях для противодействия и нейтрализации негативных последствий от стихийных бедствий, различных оснований введения чрезвычайного положения, указанных в ст. 3 ФКЗ Российской Федерации «О чрезвычайном положении», групповых неповиновений осужденных и пр. Режим особых условий предусматривает возможность введения дополнительных ограничений в отношении осужденных к лишению свободы и корректировку организации деятельности подразделений администрации исправительного учреждения (ч. 2 ст. 85 УИК РФ). В статье предлагается повторно изучить уже имеющийся опыт ряда пилотных проектов, которые реализовывались в исправительных учреждениях, и по мере необходимости внедрить их для повышения эффективности общественного пенитенциарного контроля за обеспечением прав осужденных. Формулируются также предложения по совершенствованию уголовно-исполнительного и иного законодательства в этой сфере. The article deals with the problem of the effectiveness activity of public monitoring commission members during the epidemic. Special attention is paid to the legal basis of the activities of public monitoring commissions members in the penal institutions, taking into account the existing restrictions associated with the epidemic. According to Article 85 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is possible to introduce a regime of special conditions in correctional institutions to counteract and neutralize the negative consequences of natural disasters, various grounds for the introduction of a state of emergency specified in Article 3 of the Federal Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «On the State of Emergency», group disobedience of convicts, etc. The regime of special conditions provides for the possibility of introducing additional restrictions on persons sentenced to imprisonment and adjusting the organization of the departments activities of the penal administration (Part 2 of Article 85 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The article proposes to re-examine the existing experience of a number of pilot reform that were implemented in correctional institutions and, if necessary, to implement them to improve the effectiveness of public penitentiary control over the rights of convicts. Proposals are also formulated to improve the penal enforcement and other legislation in this area.

scholarly journals Theoretical analysis of legislative definition of the regime in correctional institutions: problems and ways to solve them

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
V. E. Juzhanin ◽  
D. V. Gorban'
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Theoretical Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Scientific Thought ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

The article provides a theoretical analysis of Part 1 of Article 82 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the regime in correctional institutions of the Russian penal system. It is noted that this definition does not correspond to the achievements of modern penitentiary scientific thought about the regime. In particular, it is emphasized that the regime cannot provide conditions for serving a sentence, since it includes these conditions. Also, the regime cannot ensure the protection of convicts, supervision over them and separate maintenance of different categories of convicts, since, on the contrary, the latter are the means of ensuring the regime. According to the authors of the article, the legislator incorrectly uses the phrase regime of detention of convicts, meaning regime of serving a sentence, since they are different legal phenomena. It is noted that the most optimal definition of the regime is presented in the theoretical model of the general part of the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, prepared by a group of authors, but the authors also subjected this definition to some adjustments.

Reasons to escape from a place of detention by convicts with the right of movement without convoy

2021 ◽  
pp. 525-526
Author(s):  
Nikita V. Cheremin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Official Statistics ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Large Material ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminological Analysis

Dedicated to a topical topic for the penitentiary system of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the PS of the Russian Federation) – increasing the level of security, which is considered in the framework of a criminological analysis of the reasons for escaping from places of detention by a particularly considered category of convicts who are granted the right to travel without an convoy or escort. The commission of such a crime as es-cape not only disorganizes the activities of institutions executing punishment in the form of imprisonment, but also endangers public safety. The actions of the penitentiary system to organize a special operation to search for and arrest escaped criminals requires large material and physical costs. All this speaks of the relevance of the study, which can help in organizing preventive measures to prevent escapes. The purpose of the study was achieved by analyzing the criminal and penal legislation of the Russian Federation, analyzing official statistics, questioning and interviewing the heads of correctional institutions of the PS of the Russian Federation, as well as the special contingent; analysis of some decisions in criminal cases related to Article 313 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the period 2010–2020. As a result of the study, the characteristic reasons (objective and subjective) of the escapes of the investigated group of convicts were revealed, features are identified, which will allow in the future to organize preventive measures aimed at preventing and preventing escapes among convicts, who were allowed by the administration of the institution to have the right to leave the correctional institutions in order to economic service.

scholarly journals Implementation of human rights in the context of COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 112-125
Author(s):  
N. R. Chebykina ◽  
K. A. Lyamina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Emergency Measures

The subject of the article is the legal basis of human rights and freedoms, including their restriction as one of the aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of the research is to confirm or confute the hypothesis that the restriction of human rights in particular the right to life, the right to health and freedom of movement in Russia during COVID-19 pandemic is legally justified.The methodology of research includes the formal legal interpretation of legal acts as well as the comparative analysis of Russian and foreign legal literature. The authors analyze and interpret international law, including international treaties and the law of foreign states as well as law of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.The main results. Restrictive measures of main human rights may lead to the violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, and can also create conditions for abuse of authority while applying the rules governing the emergency situations. International human rights law allows the suspension of certain rights in an emergency that threatens the life of the nation. This can only be done in cases where the emergency has been officially declared, the adoption of emergency measures is caused by an urgent need in the current situation, does not contradict other obligations under international law, is limited in time and does not lead to discrimination. The provisions of the Russian Constitution provide criteria, which observance is mandatory when introducing restrictions on human and civil rights and freedoms. However, no state of emergency was introduced in the Russian Federation. The state has adopted the self-isolation regime that does not have sufficient legal regulation. It has created legal uncertainty. The legal basis of measures to restrict freedom of movement is questionable. It seems these measures go beyond the high-alert regime and require the adoption of regulations that meet the requirements of legislation in the field of emergency situations. The realization of the right to health requires a solution to the problem of coordinating the needs of other patients and patients with COVID-19.Conclusions. Based on the analysis of international law, the law of foreign states and lawmaking activities of state authorities of the Russian Federation in the context of the spread of coronavirus, the authors conclude that the created legal framework for regulating the current situation is characterized by inconsistency, lack of «transparency» and radicality. Unfortunately, the pandemic has shown that regulation in sphere of emergencies, as well as health care, was not fully prepared for active spread of coronovirus. It is necessary to ensure that all emergency measures, including the imposition of a state of emergency, are lawful, proportionate, necessary and non-discriminatory, with a specific purpose and duration.

scholarly journals Criminalization of AUE*: the Pitfalls of the Enforcement of the Decision* The organization is banned in the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 68-73
Author(s):  
V. N. Shikhanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Criminological Theory ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes the expected positive and possible negative consequences of the implementation of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russia to ban the activities of the international public movement “Prisoner criminal unity” in the Russian Federation. The organization is recognized as extremist. The author considers possible options for criminal-legal assessment of the activities of adults who coordinate minor adherents of this subculture, legal assessment of the collection and storage of material and financial resources (the so-called “obshchak”), which are intended to Finance the activities of the “AUE” movement or its members. Special attention is paid to the issues of legal influence on teenagers who are in one way or another committed to the“AUE”-ideology. Based on criminological theory and practice, the author draws attention to a number of issues on which it is necessary to develop a clear position in order to avoid negative side effects from the application of the norms of the Codec of the Russia on administrative offenses and the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Among these consequences, the risks of dramatization of evil and stigmatization with subsequent polarization of young people, excessive expansion of the boundaries of criminal repression for ideological reasons, and an increase in the mood of sympathy or imitation for those who will be brought to criminal responsibility for adhering to the criminal subculture are highlighted. According to the author, the window of opportunities for countering the criminal subculture should be used with great care, so as not to repeat the mistakes and excesses that were previously made in countering extremist activities and for the sake of eliminating which the Prosecutor General’s office of the Russian Federation, together with the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in September 2018, were forced to significantly adjust law enforcement practice.

scholarly journals THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET OF THINGS: ISSUES OF IMPROVEMENT OF LEGAL REGULATION AND LIABILITY OF THE ACTORS OF THE ECOSYSTEM

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Yuriy Saranchuk ◽  
Mihail Azarov
Keyword(s):  
Internet Of Things ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Smart Devices ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Internet Of Things

the article discusses the structure of the Internet of Things, as well as the sphere of its use and purpose; analyzes the existing legal basis of functioning the Internet of Things on the territory of the Russian Federation and offers four possible directions of its legal regulation; authors pay special attention to the security of the Russian ecosystem of the Internet of Things and consider issues criminal liability due to the negative consequences of the functioning of smart devices.

scholarly journals Differentiation and individualization of execution imprisonment when changing the type of correctional institution

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-84
Author(s):  
S. P. Sereda ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Direct Impact ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the issues of differentiation and individualization of the execution of punishment in the form of imprisonment when changing the type of correctional institution, problems in the legislative framework and practice of applying the procedure and grounds for changing the type of correctional institution, comparing the specified institution of the penal law with incentives and penalties. The main requirements are analyzed, which should underlie the change in the scope of restrictions and deprivations constituting the content of the sentence of imprisonment when changing the type of correctional institution and the place of serving the sentence. It is noted that the perfection of legislative consolidation of the legal mechanisms under consideration has a direct impact on the achievement of the goals of punishment. The system of places of imprisonment in Russia has historically developed in the direction of increasing the differentiation of punishment in relation to various categories of convicts, reducing the proportion of judicial discretion. These trends are reflected in both the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. The types of correctional institutions are a concrete expression of the compulsory nature of punishment in the form of imprisonment, its content, which in turn is expressed in various kinds of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of the convicted person, which in general constitute the degree of his isolation from society. Therefore, a change in the type of correctional institution must mean a change in the degree and nature of the coercive influence on the person sentenced to imprisonment, the extent of restriction of his rights and freedoms. However the issues of determining the degree of correction of convicts are of particular importance, which requires detailed and precise legislative fixation.

scholarly journals On Causal Relationship in Crimes under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 120-132
Author(s):  
E. V. Khromov ◽  
A. Yu. Zyablikov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Causal Relationship ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Security Requirements ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Road Users ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The specifics of the causal relationship between road accidents and the resulting negative consequences (serious harm to health, death of a person) have long remained debatable. Doctrinal approaches to the disclosure of causality in transport crimes seem in some cases too theorized or appear to be fragmentary special cases that are not part of a certain system. This situation is due to objective reasons, a variety of types of transport accidents associated with violation of traffic rules. Violations of security requirements by several persons are of increased interest. The law enforcement officer needs clear and applicable rules for assessing the causality of an accident. The analysis of law enforcement practice made it possible to assess the behavior of road users from the moment the danger occurred until the onset of an emergency, to determine the objective and subjective parameters of traffic that are causally related to the consequences that entail the onset of liability under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When classifying the act in accordance with this regulatory provision, the analysis shall include not only the actions of the subjects who created a danger to traffic, but also those who have ignored the legal obligation to prevent the occurrence of negative consequences.

THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AND SPECIAL MEANS BY PENAL OFFICERS OF THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM

2020 ◽  
pp. 130-138
Author(s):  
Кристина Александровна Насреддинова ◽  
Иван Алексеевич Сластунин
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Physical Force ◽  
Special Means ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Detention Facilities

Статья посвящена рассмотрению проблем правомерности применения сотрудниками исправительных учреждений и следственных изоляторов физической силы и специальных средств. Актуальность данной темы не вызывает сомнения, так как при применении физической силы и специальных средств осуществляется посягательство на жизнь и здоровье осужденных (обвиняемых и подозреваемых), а ценность данных общественных отношений подлежит безусловной защите, что закреплено и в Конституции РФ, и в Уголовном кодексе РФ. С другой стороны, любой сотрудник исправительного учреждения или следственного изолятора обладает профессиональной виктимностью в связи с осуществлением своих должностных полномочий, связанных с обеспечением безопасности лиц, находящихся в исправительных учреждениях и следственных изоляторах. Соответственно каждый день он сам может стать жертвой насильственного преступления, совершенного уже по отношению к нему. Поэтому выработка знаний, умений и навыков у сотрудников УИС по правомерному применению физической силы и специальных средств является важной задачей, которая стоит перед Федеральной службой исполнения наказания на сегодняшний день. В статье проанализированы официальные статистические данные о количестве фактов применения физической силы и специальных средств сотрудниками УИС, а также о количестве случаев привлечения их к уголовной ответственности за данные деяния. Кроме того, исследованы случаи, когда сотрудники вынуждены безусловно применить физическую силу или специальные средства, а именно факты совершения против них преступлений, предусмотренных ст. 321 УК РФ. Анализ статических данных, а также уголовных дел, научной литературы, правоприменительной практики позволил представить основные детерминанты неправомерного применения физической силы и специальных средств сотрудниками УИС и обобщить основные меры профилактики: предложены как организационно-управленческие решения рассматриваемой проблемы, так и меры, направленные на совершенствование механизма реализации существующих правовых норм, которые регламентируют основания и порядок применения физической силы и специальных средств. The article is devoted to the problems of legality of the use of physical force and special means by penal officers of correctional institutions and pre-trial detention facilities. The urgency of this topic doesn’t cast doubt, as the use of physical force and special means endangers the life and well-being of convicted (accused and suspected) persons. And the values of these public relations are subject to absolute protection that is enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, any penal officer of a correctional institution or pre-trial detention facility has enhanced professional victimization from the performance of their official powers related to ensuring the safety of persons in correctional institutions and pre-trial detention facilities. As a consequence, every day he can become a victim of a violent crime committed against him. Therefore, the development of knowledge, skills and abilities of the employees of the penitentiary system on the legal use of physical force and special means is an important task facing the Federal penitentiary service of Russia today. The article analyzes official statistical data that make it possible to understand the number of facts of the use of physical force and special means by employees of the penitentiary system, as well as the number of cases of bringing them to criminal responsibility for these acts. In addition, we analyzed cases when employees are forced to use physical force or special means, namely, the facts of committing crimes against them under article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Statistical data analysis as well as criminal cases, scientific literature, law enforcement practice is allowed to present the main determinants of unlawful use of physical force and special means by the staff of the Penal System and summarize the main measures of prevention. Both organizational and managerial solutions to the problem under consideration were proposed, as well as measures aimed at improving the mechanism for implementing existing legal norms that regulate the grounds and procedure for the use of physical force and special means.

scholarly journals Selected Issues of Qualification of Actions Disorganizing the Activities of Institutions Providing Isolation From Society (Article 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2020 ◽  
pp. 25-27
Author(s):  
Vladimir S. Ishigeev ◽  
◽  
Vadim L. Lapsha ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Activity ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Goal Achievement ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Penal Colonies ◽  
The Russian Federation

Prison crime is an integral part of crime in the country. Crimes committed in correctional institutions pose a serious problem, because they undermine the penitentiary system authority, impede the punishment goal achievement, destabilize the situation in prisons, and have a negative impact on the convicts’ behavior. Currently, 58 % of convicts in prisons have been tried repeatedly; 47% are serving sentences for committing grave and especially grave crimes. Numerous groups of negative-minded convicts in penal colonies adhere to the traditions of the criminal environment with its “criminal ideology”. The two forms of criminal activity – organized and conventional – have merged: organized and conventional. The “criminal ideology” in prisons bring about the “seizure of power”, when correctional colonies and their contingent begin to serve sentences according to “criminal notions” in accordance with the “criminal subculture”, not according to the norms of executive legislation. The present day shows the confrontation between “us” and “them”. The correctional colonies with “criminal subcultures” are called “black”, while those where the norms of executive legislation and the Internal Regulations prevail are called “red”.

scholarly journals Medical Risk in Criminal Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-331
Author(s):  
Aleksey Rarog ◽  
Tatiyana Ponyatovskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Medical Intervention ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Patient Harm ◽  
Medical Risk ◽  
Healthcare Work ◽  
The Russian Federation

The goal of healthcare work is to save people’s lives, to maintain and improve their health. However, in spite of all efforts of doctors, this goal is not always achievable because of the factors and circumstances whose negative impact it may be impossible to take into account due to objective reasons. It leads to the question of the liability of a doctor for patient harm resulting from a medical intervention. There are numerous publications in the fields of both medicine and law dealing with the grounds, forms and limits of liability of medical staff for unintended harm to the patient. Considerably less attention is paid to researching the limits of this liability and the grounds for recognizing the harm to be lawful. The absence of criminal unlawfulness in a medical interference which led to a bad outcome was justified by different circumstances: absence of a causative connection between the actions of the doctor and the negative consequences, absence of guilt in the doctor’s actions, the situation of critical need, the situation of justified risk, etc. The authors prove the fundamental non-applicability of the institute of critical need to the assessment of a medical interference with a bad outcome, as well as the unsuitability of the criminal law norm on justified risk for recognizing patient harm as non-criminal because Art. 41 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the one hand, includes requirements that do not refer to healthcare work, and on the other hand — they do not take into consideration its specific features. According to the authors, there is currently a necessity to supplement the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a criminal law norm on medical risk as a separate circumstance that precludes the criminal character of patient harm resulting from a medical intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document