Probation as an alternative to imprisonment: a comparative analysis of the legislation of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

The article considers the institution of probation as a humane alternative to imprisonment in the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic. Based on a comparative legal analysis, common features and differences in the legislative regulation of probation have been identified, including its goals, objectives, organizational structure and social support measures. It is emphasized that both countries have consolidated probation as a system of measures aimed at correcting offenders, preventing recidivism and successfully re-socializing persons serving sentences without isolation from society. However, the approaches differ: in Kazakhstan, the probation service is integrated into the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which emphasizes its law enforcement nature, whereas in Kyrgyzstan it is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice and has a more socio-legal orientation. Special attention is paid to juvenile probation, conciliation procedures and post-penitentiary support for convicts, which is more detailed in Kyrgyz legislation. Despite the regulatory consolidation, the implementation of probation is faced with personnel and organizational difficulties. It is concluded that Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have made significant progress in the development of probation, but its further improvement requires an integrated approach aimed at improving the effectiveness of interdepartmental cooperation and the development of the social infrastructure of probation.

1. Zakon Respubliki Kazahstan ot 30 dekabrja 2016 goda No. 38-VІ ZRK «O probacii». URL: https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z1600000038. (In Russian).

2. Zakon Kyrgyzskoj Respubliki ot 24 fevralja 2017 goda No. 34 «O probacii». URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=34251536. (In Russian).

3. Alibekova A.B. (2017) Probacionnyj kontrol’ kak funkcional’nyj jelement sovremennoj ugolovnoispolnitel’noj politiki Respubliki Kazahstan // Journal of actual problems of jurisprudence, no. 1(81), pp. 333–335. (In Russian).

4. Potapov A.M. (2023) O soderzhanii instituta probacii v ugolovno-ispolnitel’nom zakonodatel’stve Respubliki Kazahstan i Kirgizskoj Respubliki // Vedomosti ugolovno-ispolnitel’noj sistemy. No. 4. P. 34–41. DOI: 10.51522/2307-0382-2023-251-4-34-41. (In Russian).

5. Zhusupzhankyzy Ch. (2024) Sluzhba probacii v Kyrgyzstane: perspektivy i razvitie // Vestnik OshGU. Pravo. No. 2(5). P. 140–145. DOI: 10.52754/16948661_2024_2(5)_21. (In Russian).

6. Jermatova A.K. (2019) Sovremennye voprosy primenenija probacii v Kyrgyzskoj Respublike // Vestnik Innovacionnogo Evrazijskogo universiteta. No. 2. P. 51–54. (In Russian).

7. Potapov A.M. (2024) Ob otlichijah zakonodatel’stva o probacii v Respublike Kazahstan, Kyrgyzskoj Respublike i Rossijskoj Federacii // Ius Publicum et Privatum. No. 3. P. 119–127. DOI: 10.46741/27132811.2024.27.3.016. (In Russian).

8. Villettaz P., Gillieron G., Killias M. (2015) The effects on re-offending of custodial vs. non-custodial sanctions: An updated systematic review of the state of knowledge // Campbell Systematic Reviews. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 1–95. DOI: 10.4073/csr.2015.1. (In English).

9. Durnescu I. (2008) An exploration of the purposes and outcomes of probation in European jurisdictions // Probation Journal. Vol. 55. No. 3. P. 273–281. DOI: 10.1177/0264550508092814. (In English).

10. Porporino F.J. (2018) Developments and challenges in probation practice: Is there a way forward for establishing effective and sustainable probation systems? // European Journal of Probation. Vol. 10. № 1. P. 76–95. DOI: 10.1177/2066220318764713. (In English).

11. Zholdaskaliev S.M. (2020) K voprosu o povyshenii jeffektivnosti dejatel’nosti sluzhby probacii v Respublike Kazahstan // Ugolovno-ispolnitel’noe pravo. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 188–193. DOI: 10.33463/20722427.2020.15(1-4).2.188-193. (In Russian).