PRACTICE OF PUNISHMENT FOR CORRUPTION CRIMES
https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2018.2(2).70-79
Abstract
The subject. The central element in combating corruption is punitive practice. The whole history of mankind testifies that corruption can be restrained only by effective application of criminal punishment.
The purpose of the article is to show the practice of assigning criminal punishment for cor-ruption crimes of various kinds.
The description of methodology. The authors use the conception criminally-legal response. The following characteristics of the criminal-legal response are distinguished: lack of response; very weak response – the number of convicts does not exceed 10; weak response – the num-ber of convicts is calculated within a few dozen people; adequate response – the number of convicts and penalties correspond to the criminological characteristics of a group of crimes; intensive reaction – the norm is realized in conditions of the possibility of ensuring the inevi-tability of punishment; punitive response – the norm is applied on the basis of the "letter, not the spirit" of the law; reflexive response – the appointment of punishment to privileged crim-inals in conditions of increased public attention; protest reaction – judicial practice comes into conflict with ill-conceived legislative novels.The main results and scope of their application. The practice of imposing punishment for corruption crimes in the following spheres is ana-lyzed: electoral; public service; commercial-service relations; of justice.
Conclusions. Punitive practice in relation to persons convicted of corruption crimes in gen-eral is characterized by exceptional humanism. As the main penalties the penalty is leading (50.1%), in the second place – suspended imprisonment (24.1%). Real deprivation of liberty applies only to the seventh part of corrupt officials (14.7%). For comparison: according to art. 158 "Theft" in 2016 was sentenced to imprisonment twice as many criminals – 30,3%. This ratio indicates an underestimation of the public danger of corruption crime and actu-ally disavows the proclaimed thesis that corruption is a systemic threat to national security.
About the Authors
M. P. Kleymenov
Dostoevsky Omsk State University, Omsk
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation; Head, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology
SPIN-code: 4431-6452; AuthorID: 596245
I. M. Kleymenov
HSE - Saint Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Law, Professor, De-partment of Constitutional and Administrative Law
SPIN-code: 9166-9294; AuthorID: 343510
R. V. Pustovit
Dostoevsky Omsk State University, Omsk
Russian Federation
applicant for PhD degree, De-partment of Criminal Law and Criminology
Russian Federation
applicant for PhD degree, De-partment of Criminal Law and Criminology
References
1. Avtonomov A.S. (ed.). Legal and organizational anti-corruption measures, comparative study. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2017. 132 p. (In Russ.).
2. Makarov А.V. Corruption: experience of successful struggle of China and reality of contemporary Russia. Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie = State Power and Local Self-government, 2012, no. 3, pp. 13–21. (In Russ.).
3. Rafalyuk E.E., Vlasova N.V. Legal Science in the Search for the Legal Mechanism of Combating Corruption. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2012, no. 7, pp. 43–68. (In Russ.).
4. Khabibulin A.G. Corruption as threat to national security: methodology, problems and ways of their decision. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2007, no. 2, pp. 45–50. (In Russ.).
5. Nozdrachev A.F. Corruption as a legal problem in questions and answer. Advokat, 2007, no. 10, pp. 34–49. (In Russ.).
6. Tyutyunnik I.G. Selfish motive in the structure of crimes against personal freedom: criminal law and crimino-logical analysis, Monograph. Moscow, Yustitsinform Publ., 2017. 152 p. (In Russ.).
7. Grigor’ev V.V. Commentary to the Federal law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ "On combating corruption", article by article. Moscow, Delovoi dvor Publ., 2009. 208 p. (In Russ.).
8. Kleymenov I.M. The criminal legal reaction, its forms and types. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya “Pravo” = Herald of Omsk University. Series “Law”, 2016, no. 3 (48), pp. 192–200. (In Russ.).
9. Duyunov V.K. Criminal-legal impact: theory and practice. Moscow, Nauchnaya kniga Publ., 2003. 520 p. (In Russ.).
10. Tomsinov V.A. (ed.). Universal history of state and law, in 2 volumes. Moscow, Zertsalo-M Publ., 2011. Vol. 1. 640 p. (In Russ.).
11. Pokrovskii I.A. History of Roman law. St. Petersburg, Letnii Sad Publ., 1998. 556 p. (In Russ.).
12. Seval'nev V.V. Anti-corruption legislation of the Russian Federation and People's Republic of China: com-parative-legal aspect. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2015, no. 10, pp. 151–157. (In Russ.).
13. Khokhrin S.A. The Aspects of Legal Characterization of Offences Committed by the Officers of the Peniten-tiary system. Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2016, no. 1, pp. 135–140. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Kleymenov M.P., Kleymenov I.M., Pustovit R.V. PRACTICE OF PUNISHMENT FOR CORRUPTION CRIMES. Law Enforcement Review. 2018;2(2):70-79. https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2018.2(2).70-79
Views:
743
Email this article 