sankt-peterburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDC 343.2
Introduction. The relevance of the study lies in analysing problematic issues arising in the practice of imposing criminal penalties by courts, specifying the negative consequences arising from this, and developing legal and practical proposals aimed at optimising this practice. Attention is drawn to errors in the imposition of penalties in reviews of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in specific cases. The reasons for such errors lie in the shortcomings of the legal framework itself, which deals with the general principles and rules for sentencing, as well as in the absence of a theoretically sound methodology that could contribute to its adequate and uniform application and guarantee compliance with the principles of equality, legality and fairness. Methods. These issues have been the subject of research into penal practice in several regions through its generalisation (monitoring) and comparison of the results obtained with analytical calculations related to the imposition of punishment and the main criteria relating to the crime committed and the personality of the defendant. Conclusions. The results of the study and monitoring of judicial practice allowed us to formulate theoretical conclusions and recommendations for improving the legal and methodological basis for sentencing from the perspective of de lege ferenda.
personality of the offender, personality categories, criteria for sentencing, sentencing methodology
1. Oranzhireev N. D. Prestuplenie i nakazanie v matematicheskoy zavisimosti : (Ideya i shema ee primeneniya). Moskva : Tipo-lit. tovarischestva I. N. Kushnerev i K°, 1916. 69 s.
2. Alikperov H. D. Elektronnaya tehnologiya opredeleniya mery nakazaniya : («Elektronnye vesy pravosudiya») / predisl. A. I. Korobeeva. Sankt-Peterburg : Yuridicheskiy centr, 2020. 170 s.
3. Klyuev A. A., Poltavec V. V., Elec E. A. UK RSFSR 1922 g. Osnova sovremennogo ponimaniya sistemy special'nyh pravil naznacheniya nakazaniya i ih modifikacii // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. 2022. № 5. S. 21–24.
4. Veliev S. A. Principy naznacheniya nakazaniya. Sankt-Peterburg : Yuridicheskiy centr, 2004. S. 483.
5. Burlakov V. N. Naznachenie nakazaniya i lichnost' prestupnika : teoreticheskie, pravovye i metodicheskie voprosy : [monografiya]. Sankt-Peterburg : Yuridicheskiy centr, 2017. S. 200.
6. Zatelepin O. K. Sudy stali rezhe prigovarivat' k real'nomu lisheniyu svobody // Zakon. 2021. № 12. S. 8–19.
7. Burlakov V. N. Ugolovnoe pravo i lichnost' prestupnika. Sankt-Peterburg : Izdatel'skiy dom Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2006. S. 238.
8. Bekkaria Ch. O prestupleniyah i nakazaniyah. Moskva : Stels, 1995. S. 304.
9. Rarog A. I. Shkala nakazaniy kak sredstvo ogranicheniya sudeyskogo usmotreniya // Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik ugolovnogo prava. 2007. № 1. S. 121–126.
10. Romanova L. I. Narkomaniya i narkotizm. Sankt-Peterburg : Yuridicheskiy centr Press, 2003. S. 479.
11. Korobov P. V. O pervonachal'noy individualizacii ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2011. № 2. S. 35–41.
12. Vasyaev A., Ustimov M. Ustanovlenie obstoyatel'stv, harakterizuyuschih lichnost' podsudimogo // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2008. № 2. S. 118–120.
13. Min'kovskiy G. M. O nekotoryh obschih polozheniyah kriminologicheskogo izucheniya lichnosti / Teoreticheskie problemy ucheniya o lichnosti prestupnika : sbornik nauchnyh trudov. Moskva : Izdatel'stvo Vsesoyuznogo instituta po izucheniyu prichin i razrabotke mer preduprezhdeniya prestupnosti, 1979. S. 24–33.
14. Volzhenkin B. V. Izbrannye trudy po ugolovnomu pravu i kriminologii (1963–2007 gg.). Sankt-Peterburg : Yuridicheskiy centr Press, 2008. S. 969.
15. Lesho I. Reforma sistemy naznacheniya nakazaniya v SShA // Sovetskaya yusticiya. 1991. № 4. S. 30–32.
