Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The scientific article is devoted to the study of parole from serving a sentence as the most important incentive institution of criminal and penal law. The study of this type of exemption from punishment revealed a number of moments not sufficiently regulated by the legislator, affecting the grounds for both the application and non-application of parole. As a basis for exemption from criminal punishment, not any assessment of the degree of correction of the convicted person was recorded, but only one that contributes to acceptable correction and positive resocialization of the offender without actually serving the unserved part of the criminal sentence. It is important that the legislator determines the inadmissibility of unjustified release of convicts from serving their sentences. The problematic issues of applying this institution are: the grounds for parole, which are not sufficiently clarified; situations concerning the objectivity of decision-making on granting or refusal to grant parole; the absence of a legislative specific specialized state body endowed with powers to control the behavior of those released on parole, capable of effectively implementing them. The article proposes solutions to these problems, providing a qualitative increase in the effectiveness of the application of the considered incentive institution.

The scientific article is devoted to the study of parole from serving a sentence as the most important incentive institution of criminal and penal law. The study of this type of exemption from punishment revealed a number of moments not sufficiently regulated by the legislator, affecting the grounds for both the application and non-application of parole. As a basis for exemption from criminal punishment, not any assessment of the degree of correction of the convicted person was recorded, but only one that contributes to acceptable correction and positive resocialization of the offender without actually serving the unserved part of the criminal sentence. It is important that the legislator determines the inadmissibility of unjustified release of convicts from serving their sentences. The problematic issues of applying this institution are: the grounds for parole, which are not sufficiently clarified; situations concerning the objectivity of decision-making on granting or refusal to grant parole; the absence of a legislative specific specialized state body endowed with powers to control the behavior of those released on parole, capable of effectively implementing them. The article proposes solutions to these problems, providing a qualitative increase in the effectiveness of the application of the considered incentive institution.

In January 2020, the World Health Organization announced an outbreak of SARS-CoV2, which caused COVID-19 coronavirus disease. Soon, a continuous outbreak of coronavirus infection was declared a pandemic. This situation has led to an increase in cybercrime. Cybercriminals did not stray from the situation and used the pandemic to commit various digital frauds and cyberattacks. As a result, the objective of the investigation was to analyze computer crimes at the COVID-19 scene and identify their social and legal consequences. This is a documentary-based investigation. It is concluded that, security standards have deteriorated in the context of forty social as many organizations were not prepared for remote work and the number of victims of cybercrime will only grow soon. International organizations and law enforcement agencies in many countries issue many recommendations to prevent digital criminal acts against businesses and citizens. This situation also prompted active legislation around the world to deal with the crisis. Most of the rules adopted in recent months are likely to be derogated.

The article discusses the definition and correlation of the concepts of "conflict" and "competence" and provides various expert opinions on this. In the methodology it is an analytical research based on documentary. In modern scientific literature, the clash of the rules of criminal law is called conflict of laws, using the definitions indicated as identical concepts. However, the authors point to the controversial nature of such an interpretation of those concepts. The causes of conflicts in the rules of Russian law are analyzed. Thereis also a detailed analysis of conflicts in the rules of domestic criminal law and criminal executive law. In the context of the topic studied, the authors refer to the categories of criminal law and criminal executive law as the principles of criminal law. It emphasizes by way of conclusion that the conflicts identified are not an exhaustive list, simply the authors of this work managed to consider only some aspects of the subject, therefore the conclusions and suggestions are not indisputable. In any case, the discussion of these issues is important to achieve coherence in the rules of criminal law and criminal executive law.

The process of carrying out (serving) a criminal punishment in the form of imprisonment according to the Russian criminal and penal law provides for isolation of the convicted person, limitations of rights and certain freedoms, as well as using corrective measures to change the criminal orientation of that person towards positive law-abiding behavior. According to penal law, the corrective process is being implemented by carrying out the main measures of corrective action, which the law lists as: regulated conditions, socially useful labor, educational work, general and professional education, and social influence.

Currently the penal system sees a general trend of reducing the total number of imprisoned persons. According to the statistics by the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, 880 thousand people were serving a prison sentence in 2010, 550 thousand people in 2016, as of 1 June 2018 that number was 520.5 thousand people, and as of 1 May 2019 it was 552,188 persons. In the recent years, the number of prisoners tends to stay on the same level. These numbers testify to the continued humanization of the criminal and penal policy of the Russian Federation, as well as to the results of applying corrective actions to those sentenced to imprisonment.