Mongolian Trace in the Criminal Penalties Institute in Buryat Society of the Russian Empire in XIX Century

Yuri P Garmaev,Yuri V Kharmaev,Navaan Gantulga

doi:10.14419/ijet.v7i4.38.24348

Abstract

The article is devoted to a scientific study of the criminal penalties status in the Russian Empire of the XIX century in its outlying areas, in particular Transbaikal territory, mainly populated by the Buryats. The modern local institution of criminal penalties is justly criticize due to unsatisfactory implementation of criminal responsibility and the failure to achieve the main goals of penalties in society. The solution of pending problems in this field is impossible without taking into account, both historical and positive foreign experience. Empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectic logic. It is interesting to see the experience of criminal penalties in the Russian Empire of the XIX century in Buryat society, which seamlessly combine both Russian traditions and the customs of the neighboring Mongolian state. Legal regulation of the outlying territories of the Russian Empire in the XIX century, in the context of preventing criminal acts is based on the peculiarities of delineation of legal proceedings depending on categories of the crimes committed. As the study reveals, prevention of new crimes in the outlying territories of the Russian Empire in XIX century (in the Buryat society) and correction of the offender were achieved primarily through public institutions (local government, tribal and clan communities). We believe that in modern conditions, along with the state institutions of subjects of prevention, the possibility of preventive measures by the mentioned institutions should not be discounted.

Highlights

Optimizing the system of basic criminal penalties, as well as reforming the system of additional penalties are acting as one of the ways to improve Russian criminal law
The prior article 52 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provided the confiscation of property as a form of penalty, did not contain the requirement: the property which is subject to confiscation should be the property of the convict, regardless of the source of its origin
As the experts in the field of penitentiaries note, the absence of indication of the punitive nature of the penalty led to inconsistent humanization of the criminal law [4]

Summary

Introduction

Optimizing the system of basic criminal penalties, as well as reforming the system of additional penalties are acting as one of the ways to improve Russian criminal law. The list and content of criminal penalties in the article 44 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 reflected the realities of the late 1990s of the last century, the “post-Soviet” period, the transition from one formation to another, and as critics say, this was not always legally and socially conditioned. As the experts in the field of penitentiaries note, the absence of indication of the punitive nature of the penalty led to inconsistent humanization of the criminal law [4]. It can be noted with regret, that the current criminal situation in Russia, as well as the situation in the social and economic spheres, is far from stable. The famous saying “All new is well forgotten old” should not be forgotten, but should be adopted and used effectively in modern conditions

Institute of Criminal Penalties as an Object of Investigation

Institute of Criminal Punishment in Medieval Mongolia

Features of criminal penalties in Buryat society of the Russian Empire

Conclusion