Justice of Punishment as Social Compromise
- 10.2991/assehr.k.200321.085How to use a DOI?
- social justice, purposes of punishment, criteria of justice, measure of punishment, judge
For finding the way of achieving a just punishment we drew up a special questionary containing open question and conducted a survey among 350 federal judges from 20 subjects of the Russian Federation. The survey was conducted in the course of 2017 by forwarding the questionaries to the courts of all regions; in January 2018, we analyzed and summarized the resulted obtained. We selectively studies sentences passed by judges from the same regions and concluded that there are several possible options: 1. Court gave a correct appraisal of the criteria of justice provided by law, though the public does not consider the punishment to be fair. Therefore, social level of justice is unrealized; it may result from deformation in public consciousness as for certain legal processes, although, while imposing punishment a judge must aspire to realize social public will and minimize social opposition as for the penalty imposed; 2. The court gave incorrect appraisal of legal criteria and punishment may not be considered as fair, nevertheless, due to the deformation in public consciousness, the public may still regard such punishment as fair, though it not being the said. 3. Finally, the most favorable situation – when a sentence is passed in compliance with all legal criteria and successfully undergoes social expertise; in this case, one may say that justice is attained and the punishment is fair.
- © 2020, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.
- Open Access
- This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Cite this article
TY - CONF AU - V.N. Voronin PY - 2020 DA - 2020/03/24 TI - Justice of Punishment as Social Compromise BT - Proceedings of the XVII International Research-to-Practice Conference dedicated to the memory of M.I. Kovalyov (ICK 2020) PB - Atlantis Press SP - 62 EP - 66 SN - 2352-5398 UR - https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200321.085 DO - 10.2991/assehr.k.200321.085 ID - Voronin2020 ER -