Effectiveness of Criminal Punishment for Corruption Crimes

The paper examines factors influencing the effectiveness of criminal punishment for corruption crimes. The research methodology includes the main method of scientific cognition (dialectical), a systematic approach, general scientific methods: analysis and synthesis (in understanding corruption acts), comparison (law enforcement practices, types of criminal punishment); private scientific methods: mathematical and criminal statistical (in calculating indicators and identifying correlations), sociological (survey of respondents-officers responsible for preliminary investigation, judges, convicts, citizens), analysis of documents, etc. The empirical basis consists of the results of a criminological study conducted by the author in 2018–2020. as part of an interregional research team (Vladimir, Volgograd, Kazan, N. Novgorod, Syktyvkar), as well as criminal statistics data, materials of judicial practice. The paper analyzes the state of the problem of determining the effectiveness of criminal punishment. The results obtained are projected onto the sphere of corruption crimes. The law enforcement practice of sentencing for corruption crimes for the period 2016–2020 is presented on the basis of judicial statistics. The author substantiates the necessity of determining the criteria for evaluating effectiveness of criminal punishment in the area under examination. These include the achievement through punishment of the goals stated by the law-maker. It is proposed to focus on the results of criminological research when assessing the effectiveness of the execution of punishment. Additional criteria for effectiveness can be: the proportion of convicts who consider the punishment imposed on them fair/unfair; the proportion of convicts who have fully/ partially compensated for the damage caused, etc. The conclusion is made about insufficient effectiveness of the most commonly used types of punishment, as well as the low deterrent effect of the fine. It is demonstrated that the humanism inherent in modern anti-corruption legislation is not recognized by convicts, thereby the trust provided by the state is not justified against the background of the corruption acts committed. The author argues the expediency of returning confiscation as a full-fledged type of criminal punishment for corruption crimes. The disclosure of the potential of criminal punishment in the form of imprisonment and the restoration of property confiscation can increase the effectiveness of the criminal law response to the threat of corruption.

1. Bytko SYu. Kriterii effektivnosti ugolovnogo nakazaniya [The criterion of efficiency of preventive effects of criminal punishment]. Vestnik SSLA. 2015;5(106):149-152. (In Russ.).

2. Garbatovich DA. Primenyaemost ugolovnogo nakazaniya kak kriteriy ego effektivnosti [Application of criminal penalties as a criterion for its effectiveness]. Bulletin of South Ural State University. Series «Law». 2014;14(2):32-38. (In Russ.).

3. Garbatovich DA. Ugolovnoe nakazanie: aspekty effektivnosti [Criminal Penalties: Issues of Efficiency]. Bulletin of South Ural State University. Series «Law». 2014;14(4):32-37. (In Russ.).

4. Dolgopolov KA. Vliyanie kharaktera i stepeni obshchestvennoy opasnosti sovershennogo deyaniya na naznachenie ugolovnogo nakazaniya [Influence of Character and Degree of Public Danger of a Committed Act on Criminal Sentencing]. Victimology. 2015;1(3): 20-23. (In Russ.).

5. Inshakov SM. Effektivnost ugolovnogo nakazaniya: metodika analiza [The Effectiveness of Criminal Punishment: Methods of Analysis]. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Education and teaching. 2014;25(711):32-61. (In Russ.).

6. Kazakova VA. Ekonomiya repressii kak sostavlyayushchaya effektivnosti nakazaniya [Limited repression as an element of susceptability of punishment]. Penal Enforcement Law. 2017;12(2):120-124. (In Russ.).

7. Kernayuk BV, Kulesh EA, Samoylyuk NV. K voprosu o tselyakh ugolovnogo i ugolovno-ispolnitelnogo zakonodatelstva Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The question of the purpose of the penal system the Russian Federation]. Power and Governance in the East of Russia. 2017;4(81):170-176. (In Russ.).

8. Kleimenov MP, Kleimenov IM, Pustovit RV. Praktika naznacheniya nakazaniya za korruptsionnye prestupleniya [The practice of punishment for corruption crimes]. Law Enforcement Review. 2018;2(2):70-79. (In Russ.).

9. Kulakova MN. Preduprezhdenie korruptsionnykh prestupleniy: pravovye i organizatsionno-upravlencheskie osnovy: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk: 12.00.08. [Prevention of corruption crimes: legal and organizational and managerial foundations: Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation: 12.00.08. Kazan; 2021. (In Russ.).

10. Kuri H, Ilchenko O. Effektivnost nakazaniya: rezultaty mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniy [Punishment Efficiency: Results of International Research]. Russian Journal of Economics and Law. 2013;2(26):240-256. (In Russ.).

11. Lopashenko NA. Ponyatie, kriterii i pokazateli effektivnosti ugolovnogo nakazaniya [The concept, criteria and indicators of the effectiveness of criminal punishment]. In: Improvement of legal regulation and mechanisms of functioning of the crime prevention system: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, October 18–19, 2013; Minsk. Minsk: Publishing House of the BSU Center; 2013. (In Russ.).

12. Muslov BV. Latentnaya prestupnost: nekotorye voprosy teorii i praktiki protivodeystviya: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk: 12.00.08 [Latent crime: some questions of the theory and practice of counteraction: Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation]. St. Petersburg; 2006. (In Russ.).

13. Ovchinsky VS. Kriminologiya krizisa [Criminology of the crisis]. Moscow: Norma; 2009. (In Russ.).

14. Paliy AA. Sushchnost i tseli nakazaniya v rossiyskom ugolovnom prave i sredstva ikh dostizheniya: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk: 12.00.08 [The essence and goals of punishment in Russian criminal law and the means to achieve them: Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation]. Rostov-on-Don; 2001. (In Russ.).

15. Stromov VYu. Effektivnaya realizatsiya nakazaniy: problemy ugolovno-pravovoy teorii i pravoprimenitelnoy praktiki [Effective implementation of punishments: problems of criminal law theory and law enforcement practice]. Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities. 2014;7(135):134-147. (In Russ.).

16. Tallock G. Sderzhivayut li nakazaniya prestupnost? [Do punishments deter crime?]. Economic Theory of Criminal and Law Enforcement Activities. Economic Theory of Crimes and Punishments. Issue 1. Moscow: Publishing House of RSUH; 1999, Issue 1. Pp. 93–98. Available at: http://corruption.rsuh.ru/magazine/1/n115.shtml [Accessed: 09.02.2022]. (In Russ.).

17. Ulezko SI, Serogodskaya ES, Mateush AZhG. K voprosu ob effektivnosti ugolovno-pravovykh norm o nakazanii za dolzhnostnoe zloupotreblenie [On the question of the effectiveness of criminal law norms on punishment for official abuse]. Socio-Political Sciences. 2018;1:104-106. (In Russ.).

18. Shargorodsky MD.Nakazanie, ego tseli i effektivnost [Punishment, its goals and effectiveness]. Leningrad: Publishing House of the Leningrad University; 1973. (In Russ.).

19. Shestakov DA. Latentnost prestupnosti, voprosy teorii [Latency of crime, questions of theory]. Criminology: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. 2009;1(16):131-141. (In Russ.).

20. Yakovlev AM. Ob effektivnosti ispolneniya nakazaniya [On the effectiveness of the execution of punishment]. The Soviet State and Law. 1964;1:99-103. (In Russ.).