Some problems in calculating and counting the period of prohibition of certain actions against the period of house arrest, detention and imprisonment

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Olga V. Zheleva, Alexander S. Tkach
{"title":"Some problems in calculating and counting the period of prohibition of certain actions against the period of house arrest, detention and imprisonment","authors":"Olga V. Zheleva, Alexander S. Tkach","doi":"10.17223/22253513/45/4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The subject of the article is the procedure of application of prohibition of certain actions and the rules of counting the term of this preventive measure against the term of house arrest, detention and imprisonment. The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the introduction of uncoordinated changes in criminal procedural and criminal legislation, which led to legal uncertainty and lack of a unified approach in law enforcement. The authors solved the following problems: to disclose the content of prohibition of certain actions; to determine the moments of the beginning and end of prohibitions; to establish the proportions of offsetting periods of prohibition of certain actions with other measures of restraint; to formulate rules of offsetting periods of prohibition of certain actions and deprivation of liberty. The methodology of the study consisted of general scientific and special scientific methods: dialectical, formal-logical, comparative-legal, systemic, analysis and synthesis. On the basis of these methods the article provides an analysis of the procedure for calculating the period of prohibition of certain actions. It is pointed out that the gap of the present regulation is the lack of cut-off terms of injunctions' validity, stipulated in the items 2-6 of part 6 of article 105. 6 of Art. 105.1 of the CPC of the RF, the procedure for their extension and control. The Article stresses that the prohibition of leaving the dwelling is linked to the isolation of the person from society, and therefore the time of such prohibition should be taken into account when replacing this preventive measure with house arrest or remand in custody. In the reverse situation, there should also be an offsetting of time limits. Based on the scope of the imposed restrictions, the authors justify the following proportion in the RF CCrP: 1 day of detention equals 2 days of house arrest and 3 days of prohibition to leave the dwelling. Particular attention is paid to the issue of crediting the time of prohibition to leave the dwelling premises into the term of punishment. Based on an analysis of case law, the authors identify three approaches. The first is that the period of prohibition of certain actions under para. 1 P. 6 of Article 105.1 of the RF CCrP, should not be counted as part of the imprisonment sentence, as this is not provided for in Article 72 of the RF CC. According to the second approach, the period of prohibition to leave the dwelling premises should be counted as part of the term of imprisonment, using by analogy the provisions on counting the term of house arrest as part of the term of imprisonment. A third approach is that the time of prohibition to leave the premises should be counted indirectly: through correlation with another preventive measure - detention, in order to take into account the type of correctional facility assigned to the person. The authors adhere to the second position, but propose a different proportion of offsetting, different from house arrest, which should be enshrined in the Russian Criminal Code. The conclusion draws conclusions on the shortcomings of the regulation of the new measure of restraint, emphasises the criminal-law nature of the institution of setoff and proposes amendments to the RF CCrP and the RF Criminal Code. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.","PeriodicalId":41435,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/45/4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The subject of the article is the procedure of application of prohibition of certain actions and the rules of counting the term of this preventive measure against the term of house arrest, detention and imprisonment. The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the introduction of uncoordinated changes in criminal procedural and criminal legislation, which led to legal uncertainty and lack of a unified approach in law enforcement. The authors solved the following problems: to disclose the content of prohibition of certain actions; to determine the moments of the beginning and end of prohibitions; to establish the proportions of offsetting periods of prohibition of certain actions with other measures of restraint; to formulate rules of offsetting periods of prohibition of certain actions and deprivation of liberty. The methodology of the study consisted of general scientific and special scientific methods: dialectical, formal-logical, comparative-legal, systemic, analysis and synthesis. On the basis of these methods the article provides an analysis of the procedure for calculating the period of prohibition of certain actions. It is pointed out that the gap of the present regulation is the lack of cut-off terms of injunctions' validity, stipulated in the items 2-6 of part 6 of article 105. 6 of Art. 105.1 of the CPC of the RF, the procedure for their extension and control. The Article stresses that the prohibition of leaving the dwelling is linked to the isolation of the person from society, and therefore the time of such prohibition should be taken into account when replacing this preventive measure with house arrest or remand in custody. In the reverse situation, there should also be an offsetting of time limits. Based on the scope of the imposed restrictions, the authors justify the following proportion in the RF CCrP: 1 day of detention equals 2 days of house arrest and 3 days of prohibition to leave the dwelling. Particular attention is paid to the issue of crediting the time of prohibition to leave the dwelling premises into the term of punishment. Based on an analysis of case law, the authors identify three approaches. The first is that the period of prohibition of certain actions under para. 1 P. 6 of Article 105.1 of the RF CCrP, should not be counted as part of the imprisonment sentence, as this is not provided for in Article 72 of the RF CC. According to the second approach, the period of prohibition to leave the dwelling premises should be counted as part of the term of imprisonment, using by analogy the provisions on counting the term of house arrest as part of the term of imprisonment. A third approach is that the time of prohibition to leave the premises should be counted indirectly: through correlation with another preventive measure - detention, in order to take into account the type of correctional facility assigned to the person. The authors adhere to the second position, but propose a different proportion of offsetting, different from house arrest, which should be enshrined in the Russian Criminal Code. The conclusion draws conclusions on the shortcomings of the regulation of the new measure of restraint, emphasises the criminal-law nature of the institution of setoff and proposes amendments to the RF CCrP and the RF Criminal Code. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
禁止期与软禁、拘留、监禁期计算和计算中的若干问题
该条的主题是禁止某些行动的适用程序和将这种预防措施的期限与软禁、拘留和监禁的期限相计算的规则。之所以选择这一专题,是因为刑事诉讼和刑事立法中出现了不协调的变化,导致法律上的不确定性和执法方面缺乏统一的办法。笔者解决了以下问题:公开禁止某些行为的内容;决定禁令开始和结束的时间;用其他限制措施来确定禁止某些行为的抵消期的比例;制定规则以抵销禁止某些行为和剥夺自由的时期。研究方法包括一般科学方法和特殊科学方法:辩证法、形式逻辑法、比较法、系统法、分析法和综合法。在这些方法的基础上,分析了特定行为禁止期的计算程序。本文指出,现行规定的不足之处在于缺乏第105条第6部分第2-6项所规定的禁令效力的限定条件。《公约》第105.1条第6款,其扩展和控制程序。该条强调,禁止离开住所与将该人与社会隔离有关,因此,在以软禁或还押代替这一预防措施时,应考虑到禁止离开住所的时间。在相反的情况下,也应该有一个时间限制的抵消。根据所施加的限制的范围,提交人在《联邦中央申诉委员会》中说明下列比例是合理的:1天拘留等于2天软禁和3天禁止离开住所。特别注意将禁止离开住所的时间计入处罚期限的问题。在对判例法进行分析的基础上,作者确定了三种途径。第一个问题是,第11段规定的禁止某些行动的期限。《中华人民共和国民法典》第105.1条第1款第6段不应算作监禁的一部分,因为《中华人民共和国民法典》第72条没有规定这一点。根据第二种方法,禁止离开住所的期限应算作监禁的一部分,类比使用将软禁期算作监禁的一部分的规定。第三种办法是,禁止离开房地的时间应间接计算:通过与另一项预防措施- -拘留- -的联系来计算,以便考虑到分配给该人的教养设施的类型。作者坚持第二种立场,但提出了不同比例的补偿,不同于软禁,这应该载入俄罗斯刑法。结论部分对新的限制措施的规定的缺点作出了结论,强调了抵销制度的刑法性质,并提出了对联邦法院和联邦法院刑法的修正建议。作者声明没有利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书