Маликов С.В. Сроки в институте условно-досрочного освобождения

Аннотация: The conditional early release institute has originally had a time character. Time periods which are necessary to serve to get a conditional release are fixed in Criminal Code (s 79) and they depend on the category of crime. In spite of a long history of the institute and its detailed regulation there are a lot of disputable problems in theory and practice connected with correct operation of terms. These problems usually arise from uncoordinated or contradictory provisions of law or judicial practice which are devoted to questions of terms calculating. There are three Codes which are concerned with matter of handling of time periods. There is given an analysis of existing law rules and the author explains his position on this issue. The roots of the problem of incorrect terms handling have terminological grounds: many scientist suppose that an unserved term in conditional early release institute must have the same characteristics (also including a title) as a probation period in conditional release institute. That suggestion leads toward using of analogy with conditional release institute and establishing of time frames for the unserved term. We suppose that the present law provisions on this matter more suitable because they reflect that a general probation in conditional early release institute is fulfilled while a sentence is serving. For the purpose of establishing an unified attitude to this problem it is supposed to use in theory the “control term” which could be understood as the unserved term. The most difficult situation in terms handling is the appointment of an additional punishment. This question is not regulated by Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Russia also does not provide unambiguous rules. The solution to this problem lies in the sphere of doctrine. There are several proposals on the definition of the control term, the most appropriate is this: if the person has served the whole primary punishment, the court may release the convicted person from serving the additional punishment and the control term will be equal to the unserved part of the additional punishment. If the court release the convict from the primary punishment the control period will be equal to the most longest of two terms.

Ключевые слова:

Abstract: The conditional early release institute has originally had a time character. Time periods which are necessary to serve to get a conditional release are fixed in Criminal Code (s 79) and they depend on the category of crime. In spite of a long history of the institute and its detailed regulation there are a lot of disputable problems in theory and practice connected with correct operation of terms. These problems usually arise from uncoordinated or contradictory provisions of law or judicial practice which are devoted to questions of terms calculating. There are three Codes which are concerned with matter of handling of time periods. There is given an analysis of existing law rules and the author explains his position on this issue. The roots of the problem of incorrect terms handling have terminological grounds: many scientist suppose that an unserved term in conditional early release institute must have the same characteristics (also including a title) as a probation period in conditional release institute. That suggestion leads toward using of analogy with conditional release institute and establishing of time frames for the unserved term. We suppose that the present law provisions on this matter more suitable because they reflect that a general probation in conditional early release institute is fulfilled while a sentence is serving. For the purpose of establishing an unified attitude to this problem it is supposed to use in theory the “control term” which could be understood as the unserved term. The most difficult situation in terms handling is the appointment of an additional punishment. This question is not regulated by Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Russia also does not provide unambiguous rules. The solution to this problem lies in the sphere of doctrine. There are several proposals on the definition of the control term, the most appropriate is this: if the person has served the whole primary punishment, the court may release the convicted person from serving the additional punishment and the control term will be equal to the unserved part of the additional punishment. If the court release the convict from the primary punishment the control period will be equal to the most longest of two terms.

Keywords: