criminal punishment
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

413
(FIVE YEARS 201)

H-INDEX

16
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Zaharia ◽  

The concept of punishment represents one of the most difficult legal issues that are related to the concept of human freedom and responsibility. Since Antiquity, the brilliant minds of humanity contemplated about the sense of punishment and the function of this institution. Each epoch analyses this concept from different aspects and some of them are reflected in the actual legislation. The most important principles of contemporary criminal law were expounded by the Ancient, Modern and Contemporary philosophers. The field of research of this article is the philosophy of punishment of criminal law. In this study, we have applied the method of historical research of the proposed topic, which gives us the opportunity to analyze the development of criminal punishment and its goals from a historical perspective. In this paper, we aimed to determine the philosophical base of the legal punishment that legitimizes the application of sanctions to the person who committed the crime. We established the importance of the theories developed by brilliant thinkers for the contemporary concept of penal retribution and legal regulation of this institution. This theme generates several discussions that are formed in the process of comparison and debating of the ideas of influential philosophers regarding the purpose of criminal punishment. Therefore, we consider that the analysis of the theories of great thinkers gives us the possibility to understand the complexity of the phenomenon of criminal punishment, and leads to the more effective application of state constraint towards the offender.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 120-125
Author(s):  
Yuriy V. Tryncevski

The purpose of the study is to raise questions about the purposes of criminal punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty, taking into account new realities, including new technologies. The main results of the study reflect the problems of imperfection of punishments in the form of deprivation of liberty from the point of view of achieving the purposes of crime prevention and rehabilitation of the convicted person. Conclusions are formulated regarding the discrepancy between the purposes of punishment and practice, which has negative consequences for the effectiveness of the system, its legality and the degree to which it provides justice; the need more attention to the effective communication of the purposes of punishment to offenders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-119
Author(s):  
Alexander K. Teokharov ◽  
Albert Ya. Bondar ◽  
Galbadrakh Batbold

Introduction. Questions related to the effectiveness of the execution of criminal penalties constantly attract the attention of scientists. The first research in this area was conducted in the 60s of the last century. Despite the apparent simplicity of the problem, its true content is ambiguous. Researchers usually use the General and very broad category of "efficiency of punishment", and the definition of "efficiency of execution of criminal punishment" remains undeveloped. While not restricted to such concepts as "effective sentencing", "the efficiency of criminal-legal regulation", "effectiveness of punishment" and "performance punishment." Also, to date, no indicators of the effectiveness of the execution of criminal penalties have been identified. Methods. The conclusions made in the research process are the result of using various scientific methods, such as analysis and synthesis, as well as systematic and comparative methods. Tasks. The main purpose of the article is to fill a gapin the theory of criminal enforcement law regarding the concept of efficiency of execution of criminal punishment. The following tasks are identified: formulation of the author's concept of the effectiveness of the execution of criminal punishment and determination of its features. Results. In the study, the analysis of scientific views on concepts such as the efficiency of criminal punishment, the effectiveness of the criminal law and the effectiveness of the execution of criminal penalties, gives the authors the concept of efficiency of execution of criminal punishment. Conclusion. The effectiveness of the execution of criminal punishment is the ability of the penitentiary system to achieve the goals of criminal punishment in accordance with current legislation and social expectations, reflecting the optimal application of repressive and correctional measures, the material and financial resources used. The execution of a criminal sentence becomes effective when it has the following characteristics: 1) balance of punitive and corrective actions; 2) progressive execution of punishment; 3) the focus of the punishment for public needs and social needs; 4) compliance of the execution of punishment the level of social and economic development of the state; 5) the regimentation of the sentence; 6) the variability and individuality corrective measures against the convicted person.


Author(s):  
Tat'yana Kandabarova

The article discusses criminal punishment in historical and modern aspects. The term «criminal punishment» is multidimensional both in everyday and scientific understanding, functional properties are diverse. Without punishment there is no crime, and without crime there is no punishment. Hence the familiar phrase «crime-punishment». The role of criminal punishment in countering socially dangerous acts, its effectiveness causes discussion. The issues of sentencing at different times have always been and are receiving a lot of attention, both from legal scholars and from practitioners. The improvement of modern legislation in terms of criminal punishment gives reason to say that there is an understanding and research of the problems of the application of criminal punishment in modern society. Punishment expresses, on behalf of the State and society, a negative legal, social and moral assessment of the criminal act and the offender and consists in the deprivation or restriction of rights and freedoms provided for in criminal legislation. The purpose of this study is to study criminal punishment, its goals and practice of application, consideration of historical prerequisites. To achieve this goal, it is necessary: to investigate the institution of sentencing in the history of development, to study the current state of the institution of punishment, its goals and practice of application in modern Russia. The methodological basis of the work was made up of general scientific methods (historical, logical, system-structural, comparative legal analysis).


2021 ◽  
pp. 146247452110631
Author(s):  
Jawjeong Wu

There is robust evidence that Asians are not treated differently from Whites and receive greater leniency than Blacks and Hispanics in criminal punishment. Some research findings even suggest that Asians receive the most favorable sentencing outcomes among all racial/ethnic groups. This line of research, however, has not paid attention to Asian nationality groups. Particularly, it is unclear whether there is within-race variation among offenders from different Asian countries. Using the data compiled by the United States Sentencing Commission to examine whether and how an Asian's nationality affects criminal punishment, this study focuses on sentences imposed on offenders who are Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean, Pakistani, and Vietnamese nationals. Results from logistic, ordinary least squares, and Tobit regression analyses indicate that with legal and extralegal factors held constant, Asians of different nationalities face varying odds of incarceration or downward departures, and they receive dissimilar sentence lengths.


Ramus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 68-86
Author(s):  
Jacob Abolafia

In addition to its many famous innovations in popular government, the Athenian democracy seems to have also experimented with another, more ambivalent political institution familiar to modern societies—penal incarceration. In recent years, there has been renewed debate over the precise role of imprisonment in Athens, as an increasing number of voices, including Marcus Folch in this volume, make the case that imprisonment was an important point of contact between criminal punishment and democratic politics and society in Athens.


Author(s):  
Павел Сергеевич Солоницын

Статья посвящена идеям о философском и практическом смысле уголовного наказания, высказанным в начале ХХ в. выдающимся русским мыслителем С. И. Гессеном. Данные идеи представлены в единственной работе философа, посвященной уголовно-правовой тематике: «Философии наказания». В работе Гессен, опираясь на наследие Канта, Гегеля, а также современные ему эмпирическое и рационалистическое направления в теории уголовно-правовой науки, на воззрения русского философа В. С. Соловьева, пытается сформулировать философский смысл уголовного наказания как института человеческой культуры. Гессен видит этот смысл в восстановлении нарушенного преступлением равновесия между законностью и жизнью. Иррациональный характер преступления и внесенный им в жизненный порядок хаос преодолеваются осуждением преступника, переживанием им этого осуждения и конкретными ограничениями прав преступника, которые полагаются законодательством. Осуждением восстанавливается справедливость, поскольку правовая норма, нарушенная преступлением, подтверждается актом правосудия. При этом осуждение в форме вынесения приговора рассматривается как низшая планка наказания, которая сама по себе достаточна для восстановления справедливости. Высшая планка наказания - это лишение преступника всех прав, за исключением одного. При этом Гессен не называет данного права, подчеркивая, что акт наказания, сохраняя за преступником право, подтверждает его правосубъектность, которая подразумевает, в том числе, право быть наказанным. Иные меры наказания, обычно назначаемые за преступление, рассматриваются Гессеном с точки зрения материализации осуждения как формы наказания. Они подводятся под психофизические особенности личности преступника, характер совершенного им преступления, возможности государства, а также конкретные цели наказания, которые могут стоять перед ним в различные исторические эпохи. Эти цели для Гессена с точки зрения его философской теории наказания безразличны по отношению к его сущности как акта восстановления справедливости. Высшая планка наказания также напрямую связана с вопросом смертной казни, которую Гессен выводит за рамки правового порядка. The article is devoted to the ideas about the philosophical and practical meaning of criminal punishment, expressed in the early twentieth century by the outstanding Russian thinker S. I. Gessen. These ideas are developed in the only work of the philosopher, enlightened criminal law topics - «The Philosophy of punishment». In his work, Gessen, relying on the legacy of Kant, Gegel, as well as the empirical and rationalistic trends in the theory of criminal law science, on the views of the Russian philosopher V. S. Solovyov, tries to formulate the philosophical meaning of criminal punishment as an institution of human culture. Gessen sees this meaning in restoring the balance between legality and life disturbed by crime. The irrational nature of the crime and the chaos introduced by it into the life order are overcome by the conviction of the criminal, his experience of this condemnation and specific restrictions on the rights of the criminal which are prescribed by law. By conviction justice is restored since the legal norm violated by the crime is confirmed by an act of justice. At the same time a conviction in the form of sentencing is considered as the lowest level of punishment which in itself is sufficient to restore justice. The highest level of punishment is the deprivation of the criminal of all rights with the exception of one. At the same time Gessen does not name this right. Emphasizing that the act of punishment while preserving the criminal's right confirms his legal personality which implies among other things the right to be punished. Other punishments usually imposed for a crime are considered by Gessen from the point of view of the materialization of the conviction as a form of punishment. They are summed up under the psychophysical characteristics of the criminal's personality, the nature of the crime committed by him, the capabilities of the state, as well as the specific goals of punishment that may face him in various historical epochs. These goals for Gessen from the point of view of his philosophical theory of punishment are indifferent to its essence as an act of restoring justice. The highest level of punishment is also directly related to the issue of the death penalty which Gessen takes out of the legal order.


Author(s):  
Ol'ga Guzeeva

In the matter of concretizing the constitutional basis of criminal law regulation, the task of building a system of criminal punishments and the rules for their appointment that is adequate to the constitutional basis is of great importance. In its decisions, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation formulated a number of legal positions, which, on the one hand, confirm the already existing criminal law decisions, and on the other hand, act as a fundamental guidance for all subsequent decisions, serve as a criterion for checking the constitutionality of criminal law regulations. Based on the generalization and analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the article presents the main requirements, the observance of which is intended to ensure the commensuration and proportionality of criminal punishment as a means of limiting the rights of a person who has committed a crime. Among these requirements, priority is given to: the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading forms of punishment; limiting the punitive treatment on the person who committed the crime, exclusively within the framework of criminal responsibility; differentiation of criminal punishment and the rules for its appointment while observing the principle of legal equality; commensuration and proportionality of the punishment established by law and imposed by the court on the grounds for the application of measures of criminal responsibility; potential and real ability of punishment to ensure the achievement of the goals of criminal law impact.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document