首页> 外文期刊>Pravoprimenenie >ПРОБЛЕМА УГОЛОВНОЙ РЕПРЕССИИ ВНЕ УГОЛОВНОЙ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ
【24h】

ПРОБЛЕМА УГОЛОВНОЙ РЕПРЕССИИ ВНЕ УГОЛОВНОЙ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ

机译:刑事责任中的刑事压制问题

获取原文
           

摘要

УДК 343.2 A new institute of repressive measures applied outside the criminal liability in criminal law (including as a condition for exemption from criminal liability) is forming now in Russian legislation. The author concludes that the provisions of the criminal law on monetary compensation and a court fine should be deleted because of the following reasons. 1) By their nature, and monetary compensation and a court fine, not being a formal punishment (and, therefore, a form of realization of criminal responsibility) is a monetary penalty, i.e., penalty-punishment. Moreover, the rules of court fine destination identical rules of criminal sentencing. 2) Quantitatively court fine may exceed the minimum limits of criminal punish-ment in the form of fines. The dimensions of monetary compensation in the order of hours. Pt. 2, Art. 76.1 of the Criminal Code and at all close to the maximum values of fine-punishment. 3) Exemption from criminal liability requires states to refrain from prosecuting the person alleged to have committed a crime, which means that the nonuse of criminal repression. Regulatory standards analyzed, on the other hand, require mandatory use of repression, ie, virtually no exemption from criminal liability does not occur at all. 4) The use of a quasi-penalty in the form of monetary compensation and court fines are not an exemption from criminal responsibility, but on the contrary, the use of criminal repression (of responsibility), and in a simplified manner. 5) Contrary to the requirements of the Constitution and the Criminal Code of criminal repression is applied to persons whose guilt has not been established in the commission of a crime. Thus, in criminal law introduced a presumption of guilt. 6) Customization repression (in fact – of criminal responsibility) in the application of the judicial penalty is substantially limited, and the application of monetary compensation is excluded at all, contrary to the requirement that the rough justice (Pt. 1, Art. 6 of the Criminal Code). 7) Rules of court fine actually allow re-use of penalties and, moreover, consistent application of the two main types of punishment, although no one can be held criminally responsible twice for the same offense (Pt. 2, Art. 6 of the Criminal Code).
机译:УДК343.2俄罗斯法律目前正在组建一个新的镇压措施机构,该机构在刑法中的刑事责任之外(包括作为免除刑事责任的条件)。作者得出结论,应删除刑法中关于金钱赔偿和法院罚款的规定,原因如下。 1)从本质上讲,货币补偿和法院罚款不是正式的惩罚(因此不是实现刑事责任的一种形式)是金钱上的惩罚,即惩罚。而且,法院的罚款目的地规则与刑事判决的规则相同。 2)从数量上讲,法院罚款可能超过罚款形式的刑事处罚最低限额。货币补偿的大小,以小时为单位。铂2,艺术。刑法典》第76.1条规定的罚款,完全接近最高罚款额。 3)免除刑事责任要求各国避免起诉被指控犯罪的人,这意味着不使用刑事镇压。另一方面,所分析的监管标准要求强制使用镇压,即,实际上根本没有免除刑事责任。 4)以货币补偿和法院罚款的形式使用准处罚并非免除刑事责任,而是相反(简化)使用刑事镇压(责任)。 5)与《宪法》和《刑法典》的要求相反,对在犯罪中未定罪的人适用刑事镇压。因此,在刑法中引入了有罪推定。 6)实行司法处罚时的自定义镇压(实际上是刑事责任)受到极大限制,完全不包括金钱补偿,这与对粗暴正义的要求(第1篇第6条)相反刑法典》。 7)法院的罚款规则实际上允许重用刑罚,而且可以一贯适用两种主要的处罚方式,尽管没有人可以对同一罪行承担两次刑事责任(《刑法》第2条第2款)刑法典)。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号