Disciplinary responsibility of people sentenced to restriction of liberty for causing material damage when serving

According to the concept of the penitentiary system of the Russian Federation till 2020 rationalization policy in the field of criminal justice involves increasing the total number of persons sentenced to penalties other than isolation of the convict from the society to 200 thousand people mainly due to the use of restraint. Considering the provisions of Art. 60 of the Criminal Penitentiary Code for surveillance, prevention of crime and obtaining the necessary information about the behaviour of many thousands of convicts sentenced to restriction of liberty penal inspections may use audio-visual, electronic and other engineering controls, the list of which is determined by the Government. Design feature of electronic monitoring items and surveys of persons serving criminal sentences in the form of restriction of freedom indicate that the convicted will try different ways to damage the bracelet to get out of inspection control. But so far, the penal legislation does not include measures of legal liability for the intentional damage by the convicted to the complex electronic monitoring device. Naturally, the damage by the convicted will be compensated in civil proceedings. However, in our view, the situation when the convict is obliged to pay off for material damage only in the amount of compensation under the civil law does not comply with the whole idea of introducing the considered punishment. It is reasonable to consider the fact of damaging the convict's monitoring equipment as an option for fraudulent evasion of serving punishment of restraint and along with other types of malicious violation to replace the convict's unexpired term of restriction of liberty with punishment in the form of imprisonment or forced works. This change in the law will allow 1) to consider the criterion taken into account in determining the degree of correction; 2) to properly implement educational and preventive activities; 3) to establish a more appropriate relationship between personal characteristics and actions of the convicted and public response; 4) to ensure the safety of public property, which, in turn, must, firstly, reduce the costs of organizing the execution of punishments and measures of criminal procedure coercion using electronic monitoring, and, secondly, increase the number of persons sentenced to punishment without isolation from the society.

Keywords

Authors

References