国内和美国的经济领域犯罪制裁模式:一个比较主义者的批判方法

D.V. Kamenskyi
{"title":"国内和美国的经济领域犯罪制裁模式:一个比较主义者的批判方法","authors":"D.V. Kamenskyi","doi":"10.15330/apiclu.55.142-158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article critically reviews the models of criminal sanctions introduced in Ukraine and the United States for economic criminal offenses. It is emphasized that the meaning of the concept of punishment is inextricably linked to the fundamental category of criminal liability, which means the restrictions provided by criminal law for the exercise of the rights and freedoms of a person for committing a criminal offense. \nIt has been noted that most American courts do not practice “linear” philosophy in terms of sentencing, but on the contrary, take the whole set of unique facts and circumstances with legal significance into account in each criminal case. It has been established that this approach partially resembles the content of paragraph 3, part 1 of Art. 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: the court imposes punishment, taking into account severity of the crime, identity of the perpetrator as well as mitigating and aggravating circumstances. \nIt has been also established that in comparison with the American domestic practice of sentencing in general and for economic crimes in particular seems unreasonably humane, such that it is not able to fully implement the purpose of punishment, declared in Art. 50 of the Criminal Code, and therefore, such as objectively unable to restrain the manifestations of illegal behavior in the economic sphere. The large- scale humanization of criminal liability for economic encroachments carried out by the Ukrainian legislator at the end of 2011, combined with the decriminalization of certain acts and the replacement of imprisonment with fines in sanctions of other norms, has intensified such negative trend. \nThird, the analysis of the content and application of the federal Penal Code demonstrates not only the advantages of this act of the federal criminal law, but also its individual shortcomings. There is a lot of criticism against this document’s provisions in terms of sentencing for economic crimes. The main reason for criticism is the purely arithmetic relationship between the amount of punishment and the amount of material damage caused by such a crime. \nBased on the results of elaboration of the American experience in terms of normative provision and practice of application of punishments for economic crimes, a position has been expressed on the expediency of introducing a model of limited formalization of punishments in Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":196689,"journal":{"name":"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Domestic And American Model Of Sanctions For Criminal Violations In The Economic Field: Critical Approach By A Comparativist\",\"authors\":\"D.V. Kamenskyi\",\"doi\":\"10.15330/apiclu.55.142-158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article critically reviews the models of criminal sanctions introduced in Ukraine and the United States for economic criminal offenses. It is emphasized that the meaning of the concept of punishment is inextricably linked to the fundamental category of criminal liability, which means the restrictions provided by criminal law for the exercise of the rights and freedoms of a person for committing a criminal offense. \\nIt has been noted that most American courts do not practice “linear” philosophy in terms of sentencing, but on the contrary, take the whole set of unique facts and circumstances with legal significance into account in each criminal case. It has been established that this approach partially resembles the content of paragraph 3, part 1 of Art. 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: the court imposes punishment, taking into account severity of the crime, identity of the perpetrator as well as mitigating and aggravating circumstances. \\nIt has been also established that in comparison with the American domestic practice of sentencing in general and for economic crimes in particular seems unreasonably humane, such that it is not able to fully implement the purpose of punishment, declared in Art. 50 of the Criminal Code, and therefore, such as objectively unable to restrain the manifestations of illegal behavior in the economic sphere. The large- scale humanization of criminal liability for economic encroachments carried out by the Ukrainian legislator at the end of 2011, combined with the decriminalization of certain acts and the replacement of imprisonment with fines in sanctions of other norms, has intensified such negative trend. \\nThird, the analysis of the content and application of the federal Penal Code demonstrates not only the advantages of this act of the federal criminal law, but also its individual shortcomings. There is a lot of criticism against this document’s provisions in terms of sentencing for economic crimes. The main reason for criticism is the purely arithmetic relationship between the amount of punishment and the amount of material damage caused by such a crime. \\nBased on the results of elaboration of the American experience in terms of normative provision and practice of application of punishments for economic crimes, a position has been expressed on the expediency of introducing a model of limited formalization of punishments in Ukraine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":196689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15330/apiclu.55.142-158\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15330/apiclu.55.142-158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文批判性地回顾了乌克兰和美国对经济犯罪实施刑事制裁的模式。有人强调,惩罚概念的含义与刑事责任这一基本类别有着不可分割的联系,这一基本类别是指刑法对实施刑事犯罪的人行使权利和自由所规定的限制。人们注意到,美国法院在量刑方面大多不采用“线性”哲学,而是将每一刑事案件中具有法律意义的全部独特事实和情况考虑在内。已经确定,这种做法部分类似于《乌克兰刑法》第65条第1部分第3款的内容:法院在考虑到罪行的严重程度、犯罪者的身份以及减轻和加重的情况下施加惩罚。人们还确定,与美国国内的量刑做法相比,对经济犯罪特别是经济犯罪的量刑似乎是不合理的人道,因此,它不能充分执行《刑法》第50条所宣布的惩罚目的,因此,在客观上无法限制经济领域的非法行为的表现。乌克兰立法者在2011年底对经济侵犯的刑事责任进行了大规模的人性化,加上对某些行为的非刑事化以及在其他规范的制裁中以罚款取代监禁,加剧了这种消极趋势。第三,对《联邦刑法典》的内容和适用进行分析,既揭示了《联邦刑法典》的优点,也揭示了其个别不足。对于该文件在经济犯罪量刑方面的规定,有很多批评。批评的主要原因是,这种罪行的量刑与造成的物质损失之间存在纯粹的算术关系。根据对美国在对经济犯罪实施惩罚的规范规定和实践方面的经验进行阐述的结果,已经表示了一种立场,即在乌克兰实行一种有限的惩罚正式化模式的权宜性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Domestic And American Model Of Sanctions For Criminal Violations In The Economic Field: Critical Approach By A Comparativist
The article critically reviews the models of criminal sanctions introduced in Ukraine and the United States for economic criminal offenses. It is emphasized that the meaning of the concept of punishment is inextricably linked to the fundamental category of criminal liability, which means the restrictions provided by criminal law for the exercise of the rights and freedoms of a person for committing a criminal offense. It has been noted that most American courts do not practice “linear” philosophy in terms of sentencing, but on the contrary, take the whole set of unique facts and circumstances with legal significance into account in each criminal case. It has been established that this approach partially resembles the content of paragraph 3, part 1 of Art. 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: the court imposes punishment, taking into account severity of the crime, identity of the perpetrator as well as mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It has been also established that in comparison with the American domestic practice of sentencing in general and for economic crimes in particular seems unreasonably humane, such that it is not able to fully implement the purpose of punishment, declared in Art. 50 of the Criminal Code, and therefore, such as objectively unable to restrain the manifestations of illegal behavior in the economic sphere. The large- scale humanization of criminal liability for economic encroachments carried out by the Ukrainian legislator at the end of 2011, combined with the decriminalization of certain acts and the replacement of imprisonment with fines in sanctions of other norms, has intensified such negative trend. Third, the analysis of the content and application of the federal Penal Code demonstrates not only the advantages of this act of the federal criminal law, but also its individual shortcomings. There is a lot of criticism against this document’s provisions in terms of sentencing for economic crimes. The main reason for criticism is the purely arithmetic relationship between the amount of punishment and the amount of material damage caused by such a crime. Based on the results of elaboration of the American experience in terms of normative provision and practice of application of punishments for economic crimes, a position has been expressed on the expediency of introducing a model of limited formalization of punishments in Ukraine.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evidential activity of the court in civil and administrative proceedings: a comparative legal analysis The influence of jurisprudence of international treaty bodies on the interpretation of international treaties Administrative and legal mechanisms for ensuring the safety of the educational process in the conditions of martial law in Ukraine Simplified proceedings in the civil procedure of Poland Consideration of family cases by the court according to the rules of simplified litigation: a review of judicial practice and trends of change
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1