Criteria underlying decision making on punishment: Law enforcement practice empirical analysis

Authors

  • Александр Александрович Брестер Siberian Federal University, 6, ul. Maerchaka, Krasnoyarsk, 660075, Russian Federation
  • Елена Александровна Юришина University of Granada, Law School, Plaza de la Universidad s/n, Granada, 18001, Spain

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2018.406

Abstract

Three aspects of the punishment imposing process are considered in the article, namely the legislative regulation, the court practice and the judge’s attitude toward the punishment imposing process. The aim of the research is to understand how the judges impose punishment, how they choose a certain sanction among different alternatives, which reasons underlie this choice and which objects are purposed by judges. In the introduction, the authors put the research question which concerns the grounds underlying the decision making on punishment and the duty to justify this decision in the sentence according to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation legal position. The research part consists of the empirical analysis which includes two parts. The first part is based on the sociological method of interview. The interviewing of practicing judges allows to understand and to analysе the logic of punishment imposing process. The second part includes the comparison of judges’ answers given during the interview with the reasoning stated in the sentences delivered by those judges. It allows drawing the conclusion that there is a gap in the legal regulation of the punishment imposing process. One the one hand, the criteria, the courts rely on while making a decision on punishment, are non-legal, and the legislation lacks the legal ones. On the other hand, the procedure of criminal sanction determination lacks clear legal regulation. The authors underline that the procedural part of decision making on punishment requires scientific investigation and should be developed by legal scholars. The conclusions of the research can constitute a basis for a range of further researches encompassing different human sciences and give impetus to the improvement of the procedural aspect of punishment imposing process and the law enforcement practice.

Keywords:

purposes of punishment, the imposition of punishment, individualization of punishment, proof, personal characteristics, reasoning

Downloads

 

References

Библиография

Барабаш, Анатолий С., Брестер, Александр А. 2014. «Установление обстоятельств совершенного преступления и оснований назначения наказания — два самостоятельных этапа судебного следствия». Вестник Омского университета. Право 1 (38): 167–172.

Брестер, Александр А. 2013. «Разделение основного процесса доказывания и процесса назначения наказания как гарантия реализации конституционного права на квалифицированную юридическую помощь в уголовном процессе». Сборник материалов IX ежегодной научно-практической конференции «Адвокатура. Государство. Общество». Москва.

Брестер, Александр А., Юришина, Елена А. 2018. «Особый порядок как процедура принятия решения о наказании». Правовые проблемы укрепления российской государственности. Сборник статей. Часть 75. Томск.

Гришина, Елена А., Цапко, Мирослава С. 2013. «Социологические опросы». Тезаурус социологии. Кн. 2. Методология и методы социологических исследований: тематический словарь-справочник. Под ред. Жана Т. Тощенко. М.: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА.

Дядькин, Дмитрий С. 2006. «О некоторых психологических причинах возникновения ошибок при назначении наказания». Мировой судья 2: 24–27.

Меньших, Андрей А. 2008. «Уголовно-исполнительное законодательство Франции». Журнал российского права 8 (140): 118–127.

Онищенко, Ольга Р. 2010. «Субъективные факторы назначения наказания». Сборник тезисов участников Всероссийской конференции по юридической психологии с международным участием Коченовские чтения «Психология и право в современной России». Москва.

Оранжиреев, Николай Д. 1916. Преступление и наказание в математической зависимости (Идея и схема его применения). М.: Типо-литографiя Т-ва И. Н. Кушнеревъ и Ко.

De la Mata Barranco, Norberto J. 2008. La individualización de la pena en los Tribunales de Justicia. Navarra: Thomson Aranzadi.

Editorial de Wolters Kluwer. 2017. La determinación y el cálculo de la pena en el Código Penal. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer España.

Feijoo Sánchez, Bernardo. 2014. La pena como institución jurídica. Retribución y Prevención general. Montevideo: Editorial B de F.

Gordillo Santana, Luis. F. 2007. La justicia restaurativa y la mediación penal. Madrid: Iustel.

Morillas Cueva, Lorenzo. 2013. “La función de la pena en el estado social y democrático de derecho”. Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia 12. Accessed February 30, 2018. https://w3.ual.es/revistas/RevistaInternacionaldeDoctrinayJurisprudencia/pdfs/2013-12/articulos_discurso-investidura.pdf.

Ríos Martín, Pascual Rodríguez, Etxebarria Zarrabeitia. 2016. Manual sobre las consecuencias jurídicas del delito: su determinación y aplicación. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.

Rubio Lara, Perdo. A. 2017. Teoría de la pena y consecuencias del delito. Valencia: Tirant to Blanch.

Silva Sánchez, Jesús María. 1987. “La revisión en casación de la individualización judicial de la pena”. Poder judicial 6: 137–144.

Tamarit Sumalla, Josep M. 2012. Justicia restaurativa: desarrollo y aplicaciones. Granada: Editorial Comares.

References

Barabash, Anatoliy S., Brester, Alexandr A. 2014. “Ustanovlenie obstoiatel’stv sovershennogo prestupleniia i osnovanii naznacheniia nakazaniia — dva samostoiatel’nykh etapa sudebnogo sledstviia” [“The establishing of the crime circumstances and the establishing of the grounds for imposing punishment are two independent stages of judicial investigation”]. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Pravo [Herald of Omsk University. Law] 1 (38): 167–172. (In Russian)

Brester, Aleksandr A. 2013. “Razdelenie osnovnogo protsessa dokazyvaniia i protsessa naznacheniia nakazaniia kak garantiia realizatsii konstitutsionnogo prava na kvalifitsirovannuiu iuridicheskuiu pomoshch’ v ugolovnom protsesse” [“Differentiation of the main proof process and the process of imposing punishment as a guarantee of realization of the constitutional right to qualified legal assistance in criminal proceedings”]. Sbornik materialov IX ezhegodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii “Advokatura.Gosudarstvo. Obshchestvo” [Conference proceedings of the 9th annual scientific and practical conference “Advocacy. State. Society”]. Moscow. (In Russian)

Brester, Aleksandr A., Yurishina, Еlena А. 2018. “Osobyi poriadok kak protsedura priniatiia resheniia o nakazanii” [“Special proceedings as a procedure of decision making on punishment”]. Pravovye problemy ukrepleniia rossiiskoi gosudarstvennosti. Sbornik statei. Chast’ 75 [Legal problems of Russian statehood strengthening. Collection of articles. Part 75]. Tomsk. (In Russian)

Grishina, Elena A., Tsapko, Miroslava S. 2013. “Sotsiologicheskie oprosy” [“Sociological opinion polls”]. Tezaurus sotsiologii. Kn. 2. Metodologiia i metody sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii: tematicheskii slovar’-spravochnik [Thesaurus of Sociology. Book 2. Methodology and methods of sociological research: thematic dictionary-directory]. Ed. by Zhan T. Toshchenko. Moscow: IuNITI-DANA. (In Russian)

Diadkin, Dmitrii S. 2006.“O nekotorykh psikhologicheskikh prichinakh vozniknoveniia oshibok pri naznachenii nakazaniia” [“About some psychological causes of errors during the sentencing”]. Mirovoi sud’ia [Justice of the Peace] 2: 24–27. (In Russian)

Men’shikh, Аndrej А. 2008. “Ugolovno-ispolnitel’noe zakonodatel’stvo Frantsii” [“The Penitentiary Legislation of France”]. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava [Journal of Russian Law] 8 (140): 118–127. (In Russian)

Onishchenko, Olga R. 2010. “Sub”ektivnye faktory naznacheniia nakazaniia” [“Subjective factors of punishment”]. Sbornik tezisov uchastnikov Vserossiiskoi konferentsii po iuridicheskoi psikhologii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem Kochenovskie chteniia «Psikhologiia i pravo v sovremennoi Rossii»[Abstracts of the All-Russian Conference on Legal Psychology with International Participation Kochenovskie readings “Psychology and Law in Modern Russia”]. Moscow. (In Russian)

Oranzhireev, Nikolay D. 1916. Prestuplenie i nakazanie v matematicheskoi zavisimosti (Ideia i skhema ego primeneniia) [Crime and Punishment in Mathematical Dependence (Idea and the scheme of its application)]. Moscow: Tipo-litografiia T-va I. N. Kushnerev» i Ko. (In Russian)

De la Mata Barranco, Norberto J. 2008. La individualización de la pena en los Tribunales de Justicia. Navarra: Thomson Aranzadi.

Editorial de Wolters Kluwer. 2017. La determinación y el cálculo de la pena en el Código Penal. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer España.

Feijoo Sánchez, Bernardo. 2014. La pena como institución jurídica. Retribución y Prevención general. Montevideo: Editorial B de F.

Gordillo Santana, Luis. F. 2007. La justicia restaurativa y la mediación penal. Madrid: Iustel.

Morillas Cueva, Lorenzo. 2013. “La función de la pena en el estado social y democrático de derecho”. Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia 12. Accessed February 30, 2018. https://w3.ual.es/revistas/RevistaInternacionaldeDoctrinayJurisprudencia/pdfs/2013-12/articulos_discurso-investidura.pdf.

Ríos Martín, Pascual Rodríguez, Etxebarria Zarrabeitia. 2016. Manual sobre las consecuencias jurídicas del delito: su determinación y aplicación. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.

Rubio Lara, Perdo. A. 2017. Teoría de la pena y consecuencias del delito. Valencia: Tirant to Blanch.

Silva Sánchez, Jesús María. 1987. “La revisión en casación de la individualización judicial de la pena”. Poder judicial 6: 137–144.

Tamarit Sumalla, Josep M. 2012. Justicia restaurativa: desarrollo y aplicaciones. Granada: Editorial Comares.

Published

2018-12-07

How to Cite

Брестер, А. А., & Юришина, Е. А. (2018). Criteria underlying decision making on punishment: Law enforcement practice empirical analysis. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 9(4), 535–553. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2018.406

Issue

Section

Public and Private Law: Applied Research