CC BY
78
Some issues of execution of criminal punishment in the form of a fine
Civil, Family and Criminal Matters, ratified by the Law of RK March 10, 2004, Art. 526 Code of Criminal Procedure);
7) the person who caused the harm interest only commercial or other organization that is not a state-owned enterprise, in the absence of application of the leader or his consent (Art. 35 Code of Criminal Procedure). Rol prosecutorial supervision in enforcing criminal protsessualls rules governing the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, in our opinion determined by the following factors: firstly, the prosecutor supervises the legality not only of the decision not to institute criminal proceedings, but all proceedings during the investigation to check and secondly, the prosecutor,
having a significant amount of procedural rights in comparison with Chief of Investigations, Chief of the inquiry body is obliged to ensure the quality of departmental procedural controls; thirdly, the characteristics of the prosecutor’s supervision in Kazakhstan is that the prosecutor promptly respond to unreasonable decision not to institute criminal proceedings than court. Prosecutor within 24 hours sent a copy of the decision to refuse to initiate criminal case, he is entitled to request and examine the materials before the investigative audit. The legality of the grounds for termination of the criminal case guarantees the constitutional right of every citizen.
Referenses:
1. Zhogin N. V., Fatkullin F. N. The preliminary investigation in the Soviet criminal trial. - M., 1965.
2. Dubinsky A. J. Grounds for termination of criminal proceedings in the preliminary investigation stage. - Kiev, 1973.
3. Sheyfer S. A. Some questions termination of criminal cases at the stage of preliminary investigation//Questions of criminology. - 1961. - № 1-2.
4. Criminal Procedural Code of RK. - Almaty, - 2014.
5. Failure to institute criminal proceedings: Abstract of dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Legal Sciences. Specialty 12.00.09 - criminal procedure; criminalistics and forensic examination; operatively-search activity/A. K. Tashibaeva. -Kazakh Humanitarian Law university. - 2004. - 1.
Malykova Sholpan Baltabekovna, Kazakh National University named after al-Farabi, candidate of jurisprudence, the Faculty of Law
Akpaeva Nurlytan, Kazakh National University named after al-Farabi, undergraduate, the Faculty of Law E-mail: [email protected]
Some issues of execution of criminal punishment in the form of a fine
Abstract: This article discusses issues related to the execution of criminal punishment in the form of a fine, some execution problems of punishment in a fine, ways of how to solve problems have been reviewed. Particular attention is paid to the new criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where the punishment by a fine has become another kind.
Keywords: punishment, fine, execution, problem.
According to the article 41 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstanfine is a monetary penalty, appointed within the limits prescribed by this Code, in the amount corresponding to a certain number of monthly calculation indices established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in force at the time the criminal offense, or in the amount times the sum or the cost of bribes [1].
The problem of punishment in the form of a fine is quite versatile. It includes not only the penal and criminal law, but also socio-economic issues associated with defining the nature of punishment, as well as defining the boundaries of its application and the overall prospects of its development. The fine has the ability to bring revenue to the state,
and therefore, state authorities are showing interest in this punishment and its application is not without reason. The fine has less repressive than other punishments. The fine is instant punishment, where the application of the repair is excluded, for this reason, the imposition of a fine shall be determined in the first place, not the category of the crime and the degree criminal prevalence of the person who committed this. More effectively, fine will affect first-time offenders than those who had been previously convicted.
The amount of the punitive impact of the fine is directly related to its size. Moreover, this is the most difficult question resolved by the court in the verdict. The amount of the fine is determined by the court taking into account the gravity of
75
Section 12. Criminal law and criminology
the crime, property of the convicted person and his family, as well as with regard to the possibility of obtaining future salary or other income. If the amount of the fine will not match the severity of the crime, it would violate the principle of justice, and the punitive impact on the offender to be insignificant. If the size of the assigned fine will be less damage, it is hardly possible to speak about the achievement of the preventive purposes of punishment. It is important to determine the amount of punishment that it was feasible to pay, and not become a means of destruction of the convicted person [2].
Humanization of criminal punishment in light of the adoption of the new Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is an important but not the only factor behind the interest penalty at the present stage. The penalties has social conditionality:
1) the mechanism of execution of the fine is less costly for the state than any other punishment;
2) charged fines — additional source of replenishment of the state budget;
3) application of fine eliminates the loss of the convict socially useful links, which has a positive effect on his future behavior, eliminates the problem living and working device, the further criminalization of the individual;
4) sentenced to a fine not withdrawn from the field of social production, which allows to solve the problem of labor resources in the state. On the other hand, it is possible to identify the factors adversely affecting the judicial practice of the imposition of a fine. First of all it is the imperfection of the legislation governing the imposition of a fine, as evidenced by the numerous publications on the problems of its application. Judicial practice in recent years have provided confirmation of their availability.
The penalty may be assigned as the primary punishment, as well as an additional penalty, if this is specified in the approval of the articles of the Special part of criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
If we talk about the issues, many lawyers in different countries were in favor of lowering the minimum amount of the fine. The extension framework for fine will make it simultaneously repressive and feasible for the payment of persons with different levels of wealth [2].
As was shown by various studies, the courts avoid imposing a fine of criminals with irregular income. The proportion of unemployed among the convicted to a fine is much less than among all prisoners. Courts rarely prescribed fine for underage criminals, since the law was established as mandatory conditions that they have an independent source of income or property. According to court statistics, significant parts of the juvenile offenders are persons, nowhere students and not working.
Will a statistical case study of the Russian Federation. Therefore, from 472 teenagers convicted in 2002 in the Ryazan region, 47 % have never studied and did not work. Among all convicted only five teenagers was appointed as punishment fine. In the Kaluga region in 2003, sentenced 648 minor and only two assigned as punishment fine (0.3 %). A similar pattern was observed in recent years in the whole country. This legislative restriction led to the violation of the principles of equality of citizens before the law, justice and humanism. Required its removal [2].
In General, the Republic of Kazakhstan judicial practice on the appointment of the fine depends on the level of economic development of the region. In industrialized regions, large cities, courts often prescribed fine as a punishment, because the convicts have more opportunities to find a job, the higher the level of wages and life, and consequently more opportunities for the offender to fulfill the requirement of a judicial sentence. In rural areas, the courts rarely prescribe as a penalty a fine. The solution of the above socio-economic issues at the state and regional levels have a positive influence on the expansion of judicial practice on the appointment of material sanctions, and in the first place, fine [3].
It is well known the impact of socio-economic factors on crime, its qualitative characteristics. Obviously the influence of these factors on judicial practice, which is confirmed by statistical data on the structure of a conviction in the Republic of Kazakhstan in recent years. In my opinion, socio-economic factors have a significant impact on the practice of punishment in the form of a fine in the modern period. Such socioeconomic problems as unemployment, lack of a permanent and legal work for a considerable number of prisoners, the low level of welfare of these individuals, the lack of valuable property, not allow many convicts to make timely payment of the fine on a voluntary basis and to implement the requirements of the court decisions in the enforcement of punishment. This implies that social factors determine in practice the execution of penalties such negative processes, such as the low level of collection of fines, massive violation of the terms of compulsory execution of this punishment, the presence of a significant number of unsold writs to enforce penalties.
In accordance with the classification of the fine belongs to the group punishment not related to imprisonment. Punishment of this group have in common is that, although different in nature, they are not associated with the isolation of the convict. Sentenced to this punishment is not deprived of fundamental benefits of freedom, they do not become detached from family, work, school or other socially useful activity. Volume restrictions is relatively small.
Thus, summing up the fine becomes significant alternative to imprisonment, and execution more efficient [3].
References:
1. Criminal code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 3, 2014. - No. 226-V (with changes and additions from 07.11.2014).
2. About some problems of the purpose ofcriminal punishment in the form of a fine/C. K. Krivoruchenko, Manasyan S. C. - 2008.
3. Utkin S. C. Criminal penalties in the form of a fine.: dis. ... candles. jorid. Sciences: 12.00.08/Utkin Svetlana Sergeevna. -Tomsk, - 2004.
76
