| Summary: | УДК 343.24The subject. The article deals with the problem of the use of "substitute" penalties.The purpose of the article is to identify criminal and legal criteria for: selecting the replacement punishment; proportionality replacement leave punishment to others (the formalization of replacement); actually increasing the punishment (worsening of legal situation of the convicted).Methodology.The author uses the method of analysis and synthesis, formal legal method.Results. Replacing the punishment more severe as a result of malicious evasion from serving accused designated penalty requires the optimization of the following areas: 1) the selection of a substitute punishment; 2) replacement of proportionality is serving a sentence other (formalization of replacement); 3) ensuring the actual toughening penalties (deterioration of the legal status of the convict). It is important that the first two requirements pro-vide savings of repression in the implementation of the replacement of one form of punishment to others.Replacement of punishment on their own do not have any specifics. However, it is necessary to compare them with the contents of the punishment, which the convict from serving maliciously evaded. First, substitute the punishment should assume a more significant range of restrictions and deprivation of certain rights of the convict. Second, the perfor-mance characteristics of order substitute the punishment should assume guarantee imple-mentation of the new measures.With regard to replacing all forms of punishment are set significant limitations in the application that, in some cases, eliminates the possibility of replacement of the sentence, from serving where there has been willful evasion, a stricter measure of state coercion. It is important in the context of the topic and the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment as a substitute punishment in cases where the original purpose of the strict measures excluded. It is noteworthy that the Plenum of the Supreme Court in this regard invites the conflicting recommendations.Conclusions. It is difficult to agree with the opinion about the inadmissibility of replacement additional punishment basically consistent. The thesis about the supportive role of additional punishment is currently not the case. It seems necessary to the rejection of the criminalization of willful evasion from serving the additional penalties and the establishment ofcommon consequences of such deviations only, depending on the type of punishment, not his status as primary or secondary.
|
|---|
