Suchergebnisse

УДК 343.2A new institute of repressive measures applied outside the criminal liability in criminal law (including as a condition for exemption from criminal liability) is forming now in Russian legislation. The author concludes that the provisions of the criminal law on monetary compensation and a court fine should be deleted because of the following reasons. 1) By their nature, and monetary compensation and a court fine, not being a formal punishment (and, therefore, a form of realization of criminal responsibility) is a monetary penalty, i.e., penalty-punishment. Moreover, the rules of court fine destination identical rules of criminal sentencing. 2) Quantitatively court fine may exceed the minimum limits of criminal punish-ment in the form of fines. The dimensions of monetary compensation in the order of hours. Pt. 2, Art. 76.1 of the Criminal Code and at all close to the maximum values of fine-punishment. 3) Exemption from criminal liability requires states to refrain from prosecuting the person alleged to have committed a crime, which means that the nonuse of criminal repression. Regulatory standards analyzed, on the other hand, require mandatory use of repression, ie, virtually no exemption from criminal liability does not occur at all. 4) The use of a quasi-penalty in the form of monetary compensation and court fines are not an exemption from criminal responsibility, but on the contrary, the use of criminal repression (of responsibility), and in a simplified manner. 5) Contrary to the requirements of the Constitution and the Criminal Code of criminal repression is applied to persons whose guilt has not been established in the commission of a crime. Thus, in criminal law introduced a presumption of guilt. 6) Customization repression (in fact – of criminal responsibility) in the application of the judicial penalty is substantially limited, and the application of monetary compensation is excluded at all, contrary to the requirement that the rough justice (Pt. 1, Art. 6 of the Criminal Code). 7) Rules of court fine actually allow re-use of penalties and, moreover, consistent application of the two main types of punishment, although no one can be held criminally responsible twice for the same offense (Pt. 2, Art. 6 of the Criminal Code). ; УДК 343.2В уголовном законодательстве формируется новый институт репрессивных мер, применяемых вне уголовной ответственности, в том числе в качестве условия освобождения от уголовной ответственности. Этот процесс свидетельствует о глубоком кризисе современного уголовного права. Предписания уголовного закона о денежном возмещении и судебном штрафе следует исключить.

The subject. The article deals with the problem of mandatory replacement of punishment, not related to imprisonment, with more stringent measures of state coercion due to mali-cious evasion from serving the applicable penalties.The purpose of the article is to identify the criteria for replacement of punishments to more severe one, including multi-stage replacement.Methodology. The author uses the method of analysis and synthesis, as well as formal legal method and dialectic approach.Results. The most vivid embodiment of the principle of the economy of repression is the provision of the courts the possibility of using alternative types of punishment that are al-ternative to deprivation of liberty (from fine to forced labor). Obviously, the economy of repression should be conditional.The economy of repression always involves a certain risk, which is, first of all, a threat to evade the convict who is serving the least repressive measure of influence. Consequently, the application of the most lenient repressive measure of state coercion must be compen-sated by the mechanism for ensuring its implementation.In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the legislator uses different formulations that exclude a uniform solution to the question of a multi-step replacement of punishments.It requires a change in the provisions of federal laws that are not related to criminal law, as well as by-laws that transfer the replacement of punishment in the form of a fine and man-datory works with a more severe punishment from imperative to dispositive - contrary to the direct requirements of the criminal law.Conclusions. The legislative decision on the obligation of replacement should be clear and uniform. The current approach of the legislator is not justified, since the reality of replace-ment in determining the malicious evasion of the convicted person from serving the pun-ishment assigned to him should be the same regardless of the type of punishment served and should not become an automatic substitute, otherwise the court is deprived of the op-portunity to fully and comprehensively investigate the issue of the expediency of such a replacement in terms of the reasons for committing this violation of the regime and the achievement of the objectives of criminal punishment. Evasion of the convicted person from the sentenced punishment should always lead to neg-ative consequences for him, however, the institution of substitution of punishment for stricter ones does not meet this requirement. ; Рассматривается проблема обязательности замены наказаний, не связанных с лише-нием свободы, более строгими мерами государственного принуждения вследствие злостного уклонения от отбывания применяемых наказаний, ставится вопрос о допу-стимости многоэтапной замены наказания.