Abstract
In modern society, the role of concept of justice is increasing. Various decisions of state authorities are assessed from the standpoint of justice or injustice. However, the concept of justice has special significance in relation to state repression. Often society reacts to the use of state coercion against individuals and such situations are widely covered in the media, spark a great public outcry, sometimes lead to various kinds of conflicts between a part of society and officials. It is generally accepted that such situations of social tension are caused by the facts of excessive use of repression. However, we put forward the hypothesis that the perception of justice by society and concept of justice set out in the criminal law and perceived by the court are significantly different today, which causes systemic problems in the perception of justice. The solution to this problem is possible only with an integrated approach related to the study of the current criminal law and the potential of justice embedded in it, the perception of justice as a category in the activities of the court, as well as the idea of justice in public perception. The author had the following tasks: 1) to study the main approaches to justice in the modern system of social sciences, 2) set the parameters and forms of polling the population on the justice of punishment, 3) develop an anonymous questionnaire for judges in order to establish the factors, criteria and circumstances which they associate punishment tightening and mitigation with, 4) send the developed questionnaire to all courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, 5) after the responses are received from the courts, carry out selective analysis of the sentences awarded by these courts and compare the circumstances noted in the sentences and affecting the punishment with those indicated by the judges in the questionnaires; 6) process all received sociological data and create the following scales: a) circumstances that should be regarded when assigning a just punishment based on public opinion; b) circumstances that judges regard when choosing a punishment in specific criminal cases. The article presents some results of the study conducted on the basis of a questionnaire survey of judges and the population, as well as a description of the survey methodology.
Highlights
Having considered the basic approaches to justice, we tried to disregard the social cycle formation that has developed in the system of Russian sciences and paid more attention to the existing approaches to the justice of punishment that prevail in Western socio-legal thought
The following were considered as original theories of the justice of punishment: the political and legal theory of punishment and its justice based on the principles of fair play by the state, theories of consequentialism in punishment by John Leslie Mackey, Australia [1]; Theory of proportional retaliation by A. von Hirsch, UK, Cambridge [2]; The Theory of Retributivism by Michael Davis, USA, Illinois Institute of Technology [3]; The Theory of Censure in Punishment by Joel Feinberg, USA [4]
Retributivism today gets modern interpretations and arguments, thanks, in particular, to the works of the Swedish political scientist Göran DuusOtterström, who argues that even the traditional theory of punitive retribution in its modern interpretation assumes that the imposition of a just punishment is not isolated from public opinion [6]
Summary
Having considered the basic approaches to justice, we tried to disregard the social cycle formation that has developed in the system of Russian sciences and paid more attention to the existing approaches to the justice of punishment that prevail in Western socio-legal thought. Retributivism today gets modern interpretations and arguments, thanks, in particular, to the works of the Swedish political scientist Göran DuusOtterström, who argues that even the traditional theory of punitive retribution in its modern interpretation assumes that the imposition of a just punishment is not isolated from public opinion [6]. If classical retributivism did not recognize the perpetrator’s personality traits not directly related to the deed, for example, his positive post-crime behavior as a criterion of justice [7], new trends began to appear, such as “retributiveism”, which describes the tendency to expand the individualization of punitive influence by considering a number of different factors in order to increase the level of proportionality of the offense and punishment [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
