from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2023
Omsk, Omsk, Russian Federation
UDK 343.288 Смягчение и ужесточение наказаний. Сокращение срока отбытия наказания
Introduction: Through the study of 500 convictions handed down by various courts of first instance from 2016 to 2020, the author found that the mitigating circumstance “repentance for the deed”, applied by the courts on the basis of Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is taken into account more often than those indicated in the list of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the article analyzes the history of occurrence of the considered mitigating circumstance in the regulatory legal acts of the pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods, raises the question of the possibility of its inclusion in the list of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as of the establishment of criteria for the application of this mitigating circumstance. Research methods: The article is based on general scientific (analysis, synthesis and formal-logical) and special (formal-legal, historical, statistical, questionnaire method) research methods. Research results: The author of the article comes to the conclusion that the mitigating circumstance «repentance for the deed» should be taken into account by the courts in cases where the perpetrator confirmed his repentance by positive post-criminal behavior, and only when he had not previously committed similar crimes (had not been convicted or released due to non-rehabilitating circumstances from criminal liability). In this case, there is no need to include this mitigating circumstance in the list of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
sentencing, mitigating circumstance, repentance for the deed, sincere repentance, list of mitigating circumstances
1. Minskaya V. S. Rol' smyagchayuschih otvetstvennost' obstoyatel'stv v individualizacii ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti / Problemy sovershenstvovaniya ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva i praktiki ego primeneniya : sb. nauch. tr. - Moskva: Izd-vo Vsesoyuz. in-ta po izuch. prichin i razrab. mer preduprezhdeniya prestupnosti, 1981. - S. 99-117.
2. Kruglikov L. L. Praktika ucheta sudami smyagchayuschih i otyagchayuschih obstoyatel'stv pri naznachenii nakazaniya // Vestnik instituta. Nauchno-prakticheskiy zhurnal Vologodskogo instituta prava i ekonomiki FSIN. Prestuplenie. Nakazanie. Ispravlenie. - 2014. - № 1. - S. 4-6.
3. Nepomnyaschaya T. V. Uchet sudami obschih nachal naznacheniya nakazaniya pri izbranii mery nakazaniya // Lex Russica (Russkiy zakon). - 2017. - № 12. - S. 110-123.
4. Anoschenkova S. V. Osnova spravedlivogo nakazaniya // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. - 2017. - № 4. - S. 106-112.
5. Anpilogova V. G. Chistoserdechnoe raskayanie ili yavka s povinnoy kak obstoyatel'stvo, smyagchayuschee otvetstvennost' / Nauchnye trudy MVD SSSR. - Vyp. 24. - Moskva: NIiRIO MVD SSSR, 1969. - S. 106-118.
6. Chernikova E. E. Vzaimosvyaz' nakazaniya i raskayaniya / Psihologiya XXI veka: vyzovy, poiski, vektory razvitiya : sbornik materialov Vserossiyskogo simpoziuma psihologov s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. - Ryazan': Akademiya prava i upravleniya Federal'noy sluzhby ispolneniya nakazaniy, 2020. - S. 513-518.
7. Kobzeva E. V., Lopashenko N. A. Ocenochnye priznaki v ugolovnom zakone: rezul'taty ekspertnogo oprosa // Izvestiya vysshih uchebnyh zavedeniy. Pravovedenie. - 2002. - № 2. - S. 90-101.
8. Tugel'baeva B. G., Tynybekov N. T. Kriminologicheskiy recidiv: osobennosti lichnosti prestupnika // Soyuz kriminalistov i kriminologov. - 2018. - № 2. - S. 15-24.
9. Shkarlet N. A. Teoriya i praktika ucheta sudom lichnosti podsudimogo pri uslovnom osuzhdenii // Rossiyskoe pravosudie. - 2019. - № 10. - S. 101-105.
10. Umanec V. S. Individualizaciya nakazaniya s primeneniem stat'i 64 Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii // Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. - 2017. - № 1. - S. 181-188.
11. Dyad'kin D. S. Obstoyatel'stva, smyagchayuschie nakazanie, ne ukazannye v zakone // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. - 2008. - № 11. - S. 23-25.
12. Myasnikov O. A. O smyagchayuschih nakazanie obstoyatel'stvah, ne ukazannyh v zakone // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. - 2001. - № 4. - S. 51-52.
13. Skripchenko N. Yu. Analiz pravoprimenitel'noy praktiki priznaniya sudami obstoyatel'stv, smyagchayuschih nakazanie, ne ukazannyh v zakone // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. - 2016. - № 4. - S. 27-29.
14. Sevost'yanov R. A. «Priznanie viny» i «raskayanie» kak kriterii ispravleniya osuzhdennogo: teoreticheskie aspekty // Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. - 2017. - № 1. - S. 177-181.
15. Litvishkov V. M., Vilkova A. V. Pobuzhdenie vospitannikov k raskayaniyu v sovershennom prestuplenii // Chelovek: prestuplenie i nakazanie. - 2015. - № 3. - S. 181-184.
