Effectiveness of mitigating and aggravating factors in criminal law

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of mitigating and aggravating factors in the criminal law of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The relevance of the research is determined by inconsistencies in sentencing practice, the expansion of judicial discretion, and the growing need to ensure individualized sentencing. The purpose of the study is to examine the criminal-law nature of mitigating and aggravating factors, assess their impact on sentencing decisions, and evaluate their effectiveness in judicial practice. The core idea of the research is that the effectiveness of these institutions should be based not on their formal consideration but on a substantive and reasoned assessment. The scientific and practical significance of the study lies in its systematic approach to sentencing individualization and the development of recommendations aimed at improving judicial practice. The methodology of the research includes formal-legal, systemic, comparative legal, and statistical methods. The findings demonstrate that the influence of mitigating and aggravating factors on sentencing outcomes is inconsistent, while their formal application undermines the principle of fairness in criminal punishment. The value of the study consists in its contribution to the theory of sentencing, whereas its practical significance is reflected in the possibility of applying the results to unify judicial practice and maintain balance in criminal policy.

1. Qazaqstan Respublikasynyñ Qylmystyq kodeksı. 2014 j. 3 şılde, № 226 V QRZ. URL: https://adilet.zan.kz/kaz/docs/K1400000226 (ötınış berılgen kün: 12.01.2026). (In Kazakh).

2. Kulbaeva M.M. (2021) Ugolovnoe pravo Respubliki Kazahstan (Obshhaja chast’). Karaganda: IP «LPZhasulan». 272 р. (In Russian).

3. Nurtaev R.T. (2017) Aktual’nye problemy sobljudenija principov ugolovnogo prava // Vestnik Instituta zakonodatel’stva RK. No. 1(46). P. 128–135. (In Russian).

4. «Qylmystyq jaza tağaiyndaudyñ keibır mäselelerı turaly» Qazaqstan Respublikasy Joğarğy Sotynyñ 2015 jylğy 25 mausymdağy № 4 normativtık qaulysy. URL: https://adilet.zan.kz/kaz/docs/P150000004S (ötınış berılgen kün: 12.01.2026). (In Kazakh).

5. Bijanova A., Osmanova G., Tūrlyhanqyzy Q. (2022) Qylmystyq jaza, onyñ maqsattary jaily // L.N. Gumilev atyndağy Evrazia ūlttyq univesitetınıñ Habarşysy. Qūqyq seriasy. T. 139. No. 2. P. 88–99. DOI: 10.32523/2616-6844-2022-139-2-88-99 (In Kazakh).

6. Uhl A., Mamak K. (2026) Are sentencing disparities unavoidable? Lessons from centralized judicial training // Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 102. P. 102582. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102582. (In English).

7. Berryessa C.M., de Vel-Palumbo M., Caliman C.R., Baczuk M. (2026) Honesty as a “communicative tool” in sentencing: A study of judges in the U.S. and Australia // Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 102. P. 102575. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102575. (In English).

8. Guilfoyle E., Pina-Sánchez J. (2025) Racially Determined Case Characteristics: Exploring Disparities in the Use of Sentencing Factors in England and Wales // The British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 65. Issue 2. P. 241–260. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azae039 (In English).

9. Thomaidou M.A., Berryessa C.M. (2024) Bio-behavioral scientific evidence alters judges’ sentencing decision-making: A quantitative analysis // International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Vol. 95. P. 102007. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102007. (In English).

10. Alimardani A. (2023) An empirical study of the use of neuroscience in sentencing in New South Wales, Australia // Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 14. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1228354 (In English).

11. Smith D., Bjerregaard B., Krupa J.M., Cochran J.K., Fogel S.J. (2025) Exploring the effects on capital punishment sentencing of aggravating and mitigating factors that are not accepted // Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 96. P. 102342. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102342. (In English).