Deprivation of Liberty Dominance in the Structure of Imposed Sentences: Problems of Law Enforcement Practice

The paper examines the practice of imprisonment sentencing in Russia since the early 2000s until 2021. Using diagrams, in the context of the issue under consideration, the structure of the author scrutinizes criminal penalties imposed in Russia at the end of 2021; the number and proportion of those sentenced to imprisonment in Russia in the period from 2003 to 2021. As part of the analysis of the practice of applying imprisonment sentence for certain categories of crimes, the author studies the following: the proportion of those sentenced to real imprisonment for murder in Russia for the period from 2003 to 2021; the share of those sentenced to real imprisonment in the total mass of those convicted for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm in Russia for the period from 2003 to 2021; the number of people convicted of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm; the proportion of those sentenced to imprisonment for aggravated rape in Russia in the period from 2003 to 2021; the number of people convicted of taking bribes in Russia from 2007 to 2021; the structure of punishment for accepting a bribe in Russia in the period from 2007 to 2021. The author draws conclusions about the observed trend of reducing the share of the considered type of punishment from 88% in 2003 to 57% in 2021, achieved mainly by reducing the number of suspended sentences, as well as about the problems of the observed practice of choosing punishment in the form imprisonment for specific offenses. In particular, it is pointed out that it is inadmissible to recognize the practice of imposing imprisonment sentences for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm as the correct and appropriate position of the legislator, as well as the validity of reducing the frequency of choice of punishment in the form of imprisonment (especially suspended) in relation to persons who received a bribe under aggravating circumstances, including in a significant, large, especially large amount.

1. Babaev M. M. Rol gosudarstva v snizhenii tyazhesti sotsialnykh posledstviy prestupnosti // Sovremennye problemy ugolovnoy politiki: sbornik po rezultatam mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii / pod red. A. N. Ilyashenko. — Krasnodar, 2014. — S. 40–54.

2. Babaev M. M., Pudovochkin Yu. E. Kontsentratsiya repressii kak printsip ugolovnoy politiki // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2010. — № 4. — S. 109–115.

3. Kozaev N. Sh. Sovremennye problemy ugolovnogo prava, obuslovlennye nauchno-tekhnicheskim progressom: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid nauk. — Krasnodar, 2016. — 61 s.

4. Melnichenko A. B. Ugolovno-pravovye sredstva obespecheniya natsionalnoy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Rostov n/D, 2009. — 59 s.

5. Naumov A. V. O zakonodatelnykh kriteriyakh konkretizatsii printsipa spravedlivosti nakazaniya pri ego naznachenii // Sovremennoe sostoyanie i puti razvitiya ugolovnogo prava Rossiyskoy Federatsii: nauchnye i uchebno-metodicheskie aspekty: materialy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. — Ryazan, 2016. — S. 32–38.

6. Naumov A. V. Ob ugolovnoy politike v oblasti naznacheniya i ispolneniya nakazaniya // Vestnik Akademii generalnoy prokuratury RF. — 2008. — № 4. — S. 3–8.

7. Naumov A. V. Problemy kodifikatsii rossiyskogo ugolovnogo zakonodatelstva: novyy ugolovnyy kodeks ili novaya redaktsiya kodeksa // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2009. — № 4. — S. 44–48.

8. Naumov A. V. Ugolovnaya politika v oblasti naznacheniya i ispolneniya nakazaniya: protivorechie mezhdu zakonodatelnym idealom i praktikoy // Vestnik instituta. Nauchno-prakticheskiy zhurnal Volgogradskogo instituta prava i ekonomiki FSIN. — 2009. — № 5. — S. 3–9.

9. Nedotko Yu. V. Tendentsii rossiyskoy ugolovno-pravovoy politiki postsovetskogo perioda: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid nauk. — Chelyabinsk, 2005. — 25 s.

10. Nomokonov V. A. Nekotorye problemy optimizatsii borby s prestupnostyu v Rossii // Obshchestvo & chelovek. — 2001. — № 1. — S. 55–60.

11. Nomokonov V. A. Prestupnaya «dekriminalizatsiya» // Kriminologiya: vchera segodnya, zavtra. — 2012. — № 3 (26). — S. 48–57.

12. Nomokonov V. A. Problemy formirovaniya antikorruptsionnoy politiki v Rossii // Tamozhennaya politika Rossii na Dalnem Vostoke. — 2007. — № 4. — S. 39–52.

13. Pobegaylo E. F. Smertnaya kazn kak effektivnaya mera obshchestvennoy bezopasnosti // Publichnoe i chastnoe pravo. — 2010. — № 3. — S. 24–36.

14. Pobegaylo E. F. Tendentsii sovremennoy prestupnosti i krizis rossiyskoy ugolovnoy politiki // Publichnoe i chastnoe pravo. — 2011. — № 4. — S. 47–66.

15. Lopez R., Carter T., Songster K. Redeeming Justice (November 11, 2020) // 116 NW. U. L. Rev. — 315 (2021). — P. 315–382.

16. Pfaff J. F. Escaping from the Standard Story: Why the Conventional Wisdom on Prison Growth is Wrong, and Where We Can Go from Here (March 25, 2014) // Federal Sentencing Reporter, Forthcoming. — Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2414596. — 19 p.

17. Rai Neetij. Theories of Punishment with Special Focus on Reformative Theory (May 5, 2010). — 6 p.

18. Salib P. Why Prison?: An Economic Critique (March 6, 2017) // Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law. — 2017, Forthcoming.