Recidivism of convicts sentenced to imprisonment

The author made a research of more than 700 convicts sentenced to imprisonment and registered in penal correction inspectorates of the Federal Penal service from 2010 to 2014. The article describes criminological characteristics of recidivism of convicts sentenced to custody: analysis of the status, changes and structure of their recidivism. There is a comparison of the structure of recidivism of convicts sentenced to custody in Russia and convicts registered by probation service in the countries of Western Europe. The author provides criminological characteristics of convicts sentenced to custody, who committed crimes during their imprisonment. The most criminogenic category is determined with reference to previous criminal activity. Persons convicted for misappropriation of vehicles without intention to steal, for theft, robbery and crimes described in Paragraph 1, Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are the groups most expected to commit a new crime. Actions of every third examined person have special recidivism of theft (Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), recidivism of misappropriation of vehicles without intention to steal (Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) with preceding numerous impositions of administrative sanctions for petty crimes such as theft or traffic offences. 55% of recidivists did not work after the entry of judgment into legal force; moreover, penal legislation does not provide an opportunity to combine this type of punishment and duty to work. The author explains and formulates some suggestions to improve the legislation. Firstly, it is necessary to change Clause D in Paragraph 1, Article 58 of the Penal Execution Code of the Russian Federation, according to which public disturbance is the only violation of order and conditions of imprisonment, punishment for this offence brings to administrative responsibility. The author proposes to consider the committing of administrative offence, which is similar to the offence for which this person was sentenced, as violation of order and conditions of custody. Secondly, it is necessary to change the existing order of cooperation between penal inspections and internal affairs agencies. They should perform such duties as apprehension of a convicted person sentenced to custody, who violated the established duty or restraint. Thirdly, it is necessary to afford the right to court to charge a convict to work, if this punishment was applied as primary punishment or additional to imprisonment.

Keywords

Authors

References