The Problems of Penalization at the Level of Legislative Activity Concerning the Facts of Falsification of Electoral Documents and Referendum Documents: Solutions

About the author:

Abstract:

The article is a complex research of modern problems of implementation of the major method of criminal and legal policy — penalization. These problems have been formed at the level of legislative activity and they include falsification of elective documents and referendum documents. In reality, the method of commented policy carried out in this sphere at the rule-making level is very contradictory. This is the reason why the legal structure of the existing criminal and legal sanctions establishing responsibility for commission a crime stays in a casuistic state. The similar circumstance has led to depreciation of article 142 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a reliable guarantor of protection of electoral rights of the citizens. As a result, electoral rights for fair and not forged elections were unprotected in our democratic state. Because of this, it is of utmost and strategic importance to identify the problems and develop the most effective ways of their salvation. Thus, the key aim of the article is a comprehensive consideration of the problems and development of demanded offers to solve them on the basis of the received data. The author argues that the penalization carried out at the legislative level concerning the falsification acts of elective documents and referendum documents does not correspond to the fundamental principle of the right — legal order. These criminal and legal sanctions contain inefficient types of punishments. Some of the repressions take on only a preventive role. The prescribed alternative punishments do not correspond among themselves by the amount and term. The difference between the heaviest and least lenient type of punishment is incommensurable. In some cases it reaches 24 times. It is claimed that such structure of criminal and legal corrective actions cannot be considered correct as the existing bacchanalia provokes legal criminal corruption behavior of the bodies of administration of justice. The author gives arguments in favor of immediate revision of the carried-out criminal policy in the considered vector and the structure of the sanctions imposed for the acts criminalized in article 142 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author offers concrete, scientifically reasoned recommendations in a form of a bill aimed to solve the rash criminal and legal policy in the presented sphere of public relations. The author concludes that the penalization implemented by the legislator is logically reconciled. The types of punishments and their terms (amount) which are contained in sanctions really do not mirror the nature of public danger of these crimes. These criminal law measures of treatment are incredibly misbalanced with each other. They are built unfair. In general, differentiation of the criminal liability is determined wrong. This unacceptable situation prevailing in the contemporary developing Russian society needs to be resolved urgently because it promotes not only white collar corruption and unreliable protection of the electoral rights of the Russian citizens but it destroys the established moral values as well.

References:

1. Bunin O. Yu. 2006. Realizaciya principa spravedlivosti pri ustanovlenii sankciy ugolovno-pravovyh norm [Implementation of the Justice Principle while Establishing Sanctions of Criminal-Legal Norms]. PhD Thesis. Moscow.
2. Chubarev V. L. 1982. Obschestvennaya opasnost prestupleniya i nakazanie (Kolichestvennye metody izucheniya): monografiya [Social Danger of the Crime and Punishment (Quantitative Methods of the Study)]. Moscow: BEK.
3. Galperin I. M., Melnikova Yu. B. 1981. Dopolnitelnye nakazaniya [Additional Punishments]. Moscow.
4. Gavrilov B. Ya. 2006. “Ob ogranichenii sudeyskogo usmotreniya pri naznachenii ugolovnyh nakazaniy” [On Limiting Judicial Discretion in the Inflicting Penal Sanctions]. In: Konstitucionnye osnovy ugolovnogo prava: materialy I Vserossiyskogo kongressa po ugolovnomu pravu, posvyaschyonnomu 10-letiyu Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii. Moscow.
5. Korobeev A. I. 1987. Sovetskaya ugolovno-pravovaya politika: problemy kriminalizacii i penalizacii [Soviet Criminal and Legal Policy: Problems of Criminalization and Penalization]. Vladivostok.
6. Solovyova S. V. 2014. “Nekotorye aspekty penalizacii deyaniy, soderzhaschih motivy nenavisti ili vrazhdy” [Some Aspects of Penalization of the Acts Containing Motives of Hatred or Hostility]. Gumanitarnye, socialno-ekonomicheskie i obschestvennye nauki. Vserossiyskiy nauchnyy zhurnal (Humanities, Social-economic and Social Sciences), no 1, pp. 231-235.
7. Statisticheskie dannye oficialnogo sayta Sudebnogo departamenta pri Verhovnom Sude Rossiyskoy Federacii [Statistical Data of the Official Site of Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation]. Accessed May 7, 2016. http://www.cdep.ru
8. Tasakov S. V. 2013. “Regulyativnaya funkciya ugolovnogo prava i norm obschestvennoy nravstvennosti” [Regulatory Function of Criminal Law and Norms of Public Morality]. Rossiyskaya yusticiya, no 4, p. 33.
9. Vlasov I. S., Golovanova N. A. et al. 2005. Otvetstvennost za narushenie izbiratelnyh prav grazhdan v zakonodatelstve zarubezhnyh stran [Responsibility for Violation of Electoral Rights of Citizens in the Legislation of Foreign Countries]. Moscow: Norma.
10. Volkov B. S. 1999. Obschepredupreditelnoe znachenie nakazaniya i problemy povysheniya ego effektivnosti [General Preventive Value of Punishment and the Problems of Improvement of Its Effectiveness]. Moscow: RUDN University Publishing House.
11. Voytyuk O. M. 2008. “K voprosu o pravovoy prirode ugolovno-pravovyh osnovaniy uzhestocheniya nakazaniy” [Revisited Legal Nature of Criminal-Legal Grounds of Punishments Toughening]. Yuridicheskaya tehnika i praktika (Juridical Techniques and Practice), no 1, p. 29.