ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ ЗАХОДІВ ПРИМУСУ ПЕРСОНАЛОМ УСТАНОВ ВИКОНАННЯ ПОКАРАНЬ: НЕОБХІДНА СКЛАДОВА ПРОФЕСІЙНОЇ ДІЯЛЬНОСТІ ЧИ ЗАСТАРІЛИЙ РУДИМЕНТ

Abstract

The analysis of problematic issues concerning application of firearms, special means, measures of physical influence and service dogs by the personnel of penal institutions is carried out. It is determined that handcuffs and physical force were among the coercive measures most often used by the personnel against convicts. Most of these measures were used in cases of cessation of physical resistance of the personnel of such institutions and obstruction of procedural security measures implementation, as well as attempts to convicts’ self-harm. Most judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have ruled on violations of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the use of these coercive measures by the personnel of penal institutions, which contained signs of torture and inhuman treatment. The issue of inconsistency with the preventive purpose of executing the type of firearm used while performing tasks for the protection of institutions, convicts and prisoners’ movement as a means of preventing them and other persons from committing criminal offenses is considered. The expediency of restricting the use of military-type long-barreled weapons by the personnel, in order to exclude the possibility of using firearms to stop convicts and prisoners’ escape, and legally provide for the possibility of its use to defeat solely for self-defense and protection of others from obvious attack when life and health threatening is substantiated. The ways to solve the problems covered by the publication of the using firearms by the personnel of penal institutions are offered. The necessity of the right of privates and senior staff to apply coercive measures against offenders is substantiated. This fact is preconditioned by a number of factors, in particular: criminogenic nature of persons detained in institutions, the number of crimes committed on their territory, threats and attacks on the personnel, malicious disobedience to the personnel’s legal requirements, escapes, the presence of a significant number of prohibited items in the restricted areas, including barbed wire. Key words: penal institution, convicts, imprisonment, criminal offense, armed attack, firearms, special means, coercive measures.