Russian Federation
The approaches of the Russian lawmaker to institute control over law for persons who have committed crimes are analyzed in the article. The paper investigates the fact that given legal restrictions are used as retaliatory measures not only for those who have committed crimes. Having manifested the danger for the society the criminal suffers from other restrictions of the rights during the court procedure and furthermore. Moreover, many legal restrictions are applied not only to the persons who are under trial or have a criminal record but also to those who are relieved of criminal responsibility due to nonrehabilitating circumstances. Key law positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on arguable points of lawmaker’s introduction of law restrictions for the people who have committed crimes are formulated. Conclusions are drawn that many legal restrictions for such category of people concerning their labour activities contradict each other. Recommendations of strategic and tactical character are given, such as to reform the institute of previous convictions and to make universal law restrictions for those who have committed crimes. The realization of the tactical aspect is connected with the procedure of giving more precise definitions to many federal laws dealing with legal restrictions for this category of people. In particular, the question is about complete equality of prohibitions when joining and serving in law enforcement agencies, about federal unique list of discharge from criminal responsibility which is the reason to prohibit service in law enforcement agencies and other agencies.
criminal responsibility, conviction, legal restriction, relief of criminal responsibility due to non-rehabilitating circumstances, legal positions of the Constitutional Court
1. Grishko, A. YA., Potapov, A. M. (2009). Amnistiya. Pomilovanie. Sudimost’. Moskow: Logos.
2. Dodonov, V. N. (2010). Sravnitel’noe ugolovnoe pravo: monografiya, obshchaya chast’. Moskow: Yurlitinform.
3. Zvecharovskij, I. E. (2016). O yuridicheskoj prirode sudebnogo shtrafa. Ugolovnoe pravo, 6, 98-101.
4. Kropachev, N. M. (2000). Mekhanizm ugolovno-pravovogo regulirovaniya: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk v forme nauchnogo doklada. Saint Petersburg.
5. Kudryavceva, A. V., Sutyagin, K. I. (2016). Sudebnyj shtraf. Ugolovnoe pravo, 6, 102-110.
6. Malinovskij, A. A. (2002). Sravnitel’noe pravovedenie v sfere ugo-lovnogo prava. Moskow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya.
7. Martynenko, N. E., Martynenko, E. V. (2017). Sudebnyj shtraf kak inaya mera ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera. Trudy Akademii upravleniya MVD Rossii, 1, 24-27.
8. Marcev, A. I. (2012). Prestuplenie: social’no-pravovoj analiz. Omsk: Omskaya akademiya MVD Rossii.
9. Muzenik, A. K. (1998). Differenciaciya ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti: formy i vidy. Ugolovnoe pravo i sovremennost’: mezhvuz. sb. nauch. tr. (Str. 21-26). Krasnoyarsk.
10. Nechepurenko, A. A. (2019). Razgranichenie soderzhaniya i posledstvij sudimosti. Nauchnyj vestnik Omskoj akademii MVD Rossii, 4, 3-8.
11. Nechepurenko, A. A. (2014). Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost’: evolyuciya po-nyatiya i perspektivy zakonodatel’nogo regulirovaniya. Omsk: Omskaya akademiya MVD Rossii.
12. Nikiforov, B. S. (1981). Nakazanie i ego celi. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 9, 63-71.
13. Chistyakov, O. I. (red.) (1988). Zakonodatel’stvo pervoj poloviny XIX v. V Rossijskoe zakonodatel’stvo X-XX vekov (T. 6). Moskow: Yuridicheskaya literatura.
14. Chistyakov, O. I. (red.) (1994). Zakonodatel’stvo epohi burzhuazno-demokraticheskih revolyucij. V Rossijskoe zakonodatel’stvo X-XX vekov (T. 9). Moskow: Yuridicheskaya literatura.
15. Sbornik materialov po istorii socialisticheskogo ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva (1917-1937 gg.) (1938). Moskow: YUrid. izd-vo NKYU SSSR.
16. Sovetskoe ispravitel’no-trudovoe pravo (1989). Leningrad.
17. Soktoev, Z. (2017). Problemy primeneniya norm o sudebnom shtrafe. Ugolovnoe pravo, 1, 90-94.
18. Tarbagaev, A. N. (1986). Ponyatie i celi ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti. Krasnoyarsk: Izd-vo Krasnoyar. un-ta.
19. Tashchilin, M., Godilo, N. (2004). Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost’ i formy ee realizacii. Ugolovnoe pravo, 4, 53-54.
20. Kudryavcev, V. N., Kelina, S. G. (red.) (1987). Ugolovnyj zakon. Opyt teoreticheskogo modelirovaniya. Moskow: Nauka.
21. Filimonov, V. D. (1970). Obshchestvennaya opasnost’ lichnosti prestupnika. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tom. un-ta.
22. Filimonov, V. D. (2008). Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost’ po rossijskomu zakonodatel’stvu. Moskow: YurInfoR-MGU.
