The system of differentiation of punishment and assessment of the severity of the crime as the basis for the functioning of the institution of sentencing

The article discusses the system of differentiation of punishment and the institution of punishment assessment of the severity of crimes. At the legislative level, it is much more difficult to determine the limits of criminal legal consequences. The institution of the imposition of punishment unites a group of norms on the goals of criminal liability, the system of types of punishment, the basic principles of the imposition of punishment, special rules for the imposition of punishment. The functioning of the institution of sentencing relies on a system of sanction support for crimes of various categories. In this regard, one of the main problems of this institution is to determine the dependence of the repressiveness of punishment on the legislative assessment of the severity of the crime. Insufficient legislative assessment of the severity of individual crimes in the system of differentiation of types of punishment in the sanctions of articles of the special part of the criminal code gives rise to a paradox for two reasons. First, artificial barriers have been created to the application of other (alternative to punishment) measures of criminal liability, due to which the possibilities of Correctional influence on the criminal are expanding. Secondly, the law establishes special rules for the imposition of punishment (for example, in the case of recidivism of crimes), in which only subjective qualities are established, the calculation of which is assumed here. When comparing the existing structure of the class severity of crimes and its impact on changing the basic principles and special rules for the imposition of punishment, it is not difficult to determine the contradiction that corresponds to the dilemma of criteria that we have already touched upon: accounting for the qualities of an act-accounting for the qualities of a person. There is an objective relationship between the properties of the action and the properties of the figure, but the social properties of the figure and its focus on solving the crime are not related to the severity of the crime. Therefore, the subjective properties of an act that determine its danger (except for the type of guilt) cannot affect the category of severity of the crime.

1. Ugolovnyj kodeks FRG, po sost. na 17 avg. 1999 g. / per. s nem. M.: Zercalo, 2000. (In Russian).

2. Ugolovnyj kodeks Ispanii, prinjat General'nymi kortesami 24 nojab. 1995 g. / pod red. N.F. Kuznecovoj, F.M. Reshetnikova. M.: Zercalo, 1998. (In Russian).

3. Ugolovnyj kodeks Respubliki Pol'sha, Zakon ot 6 ijunja 1997 g. / pod obshh. red. N.F. Kuznecovoj. (In Russian).

4. Esakov G.A., Krylova N.E., Serebrennikova A.V. (2010) Ugolovnoe pravo zarubezhnyh stran: ucheb. posobie. M.: Prospekt. P. 321–334. (In Russian).

5. O vnesenii izmenenij i dopolnenij v Ugolovnyj kodeks Turkmenistana i utverzhdenii ego v novoj redakcii, Zakon Turkmenistana ot 10 maja 2010 g. No. 104-IV // Ugolovnyj kodeks Turkmenistana. Ashgabad, 2010. (In Russian).

6. Filimonov V. (2013) Problemy differenciacii vidov nakazanij, ne svjazannyh s lisheniem svobody, i otvetstvennosti za uklonenie ot ih otbyvanija // Ugolovnoe pravo. No. 2. P. 42–43. (In Russian).

7. Brilliantov A. (2012) Pravovye problemy primenenija prinuditel'nyh rabot // Ugolovnoe pravo. No. 6. P. 17. (In Russian).

8. Gorelik I.I. (1965) Prestuplenija, opasnye dlja zhizni i zdorov'ja (postavlenie v opasnost' i ostavlenie v opasnosti): avtoref. dis. d-ra jurid. nauk 12.00.08. L.: Leningr. gos. un-t. P. 20. (In Russian).

9. Marchuk V.V. (1996) Ugolovno-pravovye sredstva obespechenija ispolnenija obvinitel'nogo prigovora: avtoref. dis. kand.jurid.nauk 12.00.08. Minsk: Bel.gos.un-t. P. 14. (In Russian).

10. Shablinskaja D.V. (2013) Konfiskacija imushhestva v ugolovnom prave. Minsk: Institut radiologii. P. 28. (In Russian).

11. Cit. po Shablinskaja D.V. Konfiskacija imushhestva v ugolovnom prave. P. 193–195. (In Russian).

12. O praktike naznachenija sudami konfiskacii imushhestva po ugolovnym delam, postanovlenie Plenuma Verhov.Suda Resp. Belarus', 23 sent. 1999 g., No. 8, v red. postanovlenija Plenuma Verhov.Suda Resp. Belarus' ot 29.03.2001 g. No. 4. Minsk: Nac. centr pravovoj inform. Resp. Belarus', 2015. (In Russian).

13. Dujunov V.K. (1985) Dopolnitel'nye nakazanija po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu: avtoref.dis.kand. jurid.nauk, 12.00.08. M.: Akad. nauk SSSR, In-t gosudarstva i prava. P. 18–19. (In Russian).

14. Kagramanov A.G. (1984) Pravovye problemy naznachenija dopolnitel'nyh nakazanij: avtoref. dis.kand. jurid.nauk, 12.00.08. Tashkent: Akad.nauk Uzb. SSR, In-t filosofii i prava. P. 15–16. (In Russian).

15. Ugolovnyj kodeks FRG / per. i predisl. A. V. Serebrennikovoj, Mosk. gos. un-t im. M.V. Lomonosova. M.: Zercalo, 2001. (In Russian).