Consideration of cases on sentence modification by magistrates due to malicious evasion of serving sentence

The article examines the institution of criminal punishment substitution in cases of malicious evasion of sentence serving under Russian penal law. Drawing on specific judicial practice, the author analyzes the legal grounds and procedural framework for substituting criminal punishments, while investigating problembi of protecting convicts' rights during judicial consideration of such cases. The study explores key aspects including oatena for establishing malicious evasion of punishment, procedures for calculating new sentence terms, and selection of appropriate correctional facilities. Particular emphasis is placed on the mandatory participation of convicts in court hearings regarding punishment substitution. The author proposes improvements to the legal regulation of this institution, arguing that the punishment modification system serves as a crucial mechanism for enhancing penal system effectiveness, maintaining social legal order, fulfilling preventive functions by fostering convicts' compliance with court-ordered punishments. The analysis highlights that current procedural and executive legislation contains no exceptions or restrictions regarding convicts' right to judicial protection - a fundamental principle reflecting the humanistic orientation of modern penitentiary policy. The court case of S., studied by the author, clearly illustrates the functional mechanism for substituting a criminal sentence in the case of malicious evasion of punishment. When considering issues related to the substitution of a sentence in the case of malicious evasion of punishment, judicial authorities are obliged to clarify all circumstances that affect the legality of the decision taken regarding the term or amount of the unserved sentence or the conditions requiring the replacement of the sentence. The author concludes that this institution represents an essential tool for ensuring the inevitability of punitive measures and achievement of preventive objectives in penal legislation. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References