Public sanctions imposed by the Charter on punishments...

3.2.2. Public sanctions imposed by the Charter on punishments

The perpetrators sentenced to arrest could do physical work only at will. Persons of the higher classes (honorary citizens, persons who have reached class positions in the civil service, etc.), awarded by magistrates to arrest, enjoyed the appropriate advantages in serving their sentence, for example, the procedure for applying punishment in the form of arrest for an offense committed by a priest or monk was determined diocesan leadership.

The punishment in the form of imprisonment was not applied to minors: persons from 14 to 17 years were sent to special correctional institutions, while the term of punishment was determined by a justice of the peace from one year and not further than reaching the age of 18 years. Justices of the peace had the right to apply to minors under the age of 10 to 17 years, sanctions not attributed to penalties for misconduct, even if there are signs of aggravating responsibility, for example, to transfer the offender under responsible supervision to persons at the discretion of the magistrate (parents, trustees or " , to other trustworthy people who expressed their consent "). Thus, persons who reached the time of the commission of the offense of 10 years of age were liable for minor offenses.

Property penalty in the form of a fine was not executed and was subject to replacement by a more severe punishment (as a rule, by arrest) only in case of material insolvency of the offender. The severity of the sanctions applied instead of the main punishment was determined by the size of the property penalty:

o when replacing a fine of up to 15 rubles. the period of arrest could not exceed three days;

o when replacing the monetary foreclosures in the amount of 15 to 300 rubles. the arrest could not exceed three months;

o in case of replacement of a fine in the amount of 300 to 800 rubles. The offender was subject to imprisonment for up to four months.

Thus, the world court was entitled to impose a fine in an amount exceeding the maximum size specified in Art. 1 of the Charter on punishments, as well as determine the duration of the arrest, appointed in exchange for property sanctions in the amount of up to 300 rubles.

Dependence of the length of the arrest on the amount of the fine (with a minimum amount of up to 15 rubles) was determined from the ratio of one to five (one day of arrest was proportional to one fifth of the monetary penalty). The term of the arrest, appointed instead of a fine in the maximum amount (up to 300 rubles.), Was calculated from other proportions - one day of arrest was equivalent to about a third of the fine. It was allowed to replace the monetary penalty (if it was impossible to pay it) with administrative sanctions that did not apply to punishments - public works, etc. In case of insolvency of persons of the higher classes - they did not have the opportunity to pay a fine - the punishment for offenses was replaced by sanctions with the consent of the offender. Thus, the application of the said statutes of the Charter to punishments contrary to the wishes of the insolvent person was allowed only for peasants and petty bourgeoises, but was excluded for noblemen, as well as for members of the Cossack class.

In any case, the magistrates were entitled, but not obliged to apply administrative sanctions to peasants and petty bourgeois. Such sanctions (public works or "transfer to earnings") provided for identical conditions for the enforcement proceedings: insolvent offenders or members of their families were sent to forced labor at the place where the offense was committed, or to nearby provinces. The terms of work corresponding to the amount of pecuniary punishment were determined at the discretion of the municipal entities in which the offenders lived and depended on the amount of property damage caused by the misconduct.

Penalties in the form of reprimands, remarks and suggestions were used in the commission of misconduct "without intention". In modern perception, this term means the presence of signs of careless guilt in the form of criminal frivolity. The concept of "reckless wine" in the United States law was mentioned only in Art. 110, 1466 and 1468 (careless killing) of the Penal Code and in Art. 9 of the Charter of Punishment. As a consequence, there was no unequivocal delineation of the signs of careless guilt in the form of frivolity and negligence.

The most important qualifying feature of a careless act was the lack of intention of the offender to cause socially dangerous consequences through his misdemeanor, hence the concept of "unintentional misconduct."

In accordance with the Charter of Penalties, the use of stricter sanctions "for involuntary misconduct" was possible in two cases: when the Statute provides for punishment for negligence or when the misconduct manifests itself in the negligence of the obligation established by law.

Thus, preventive punishment (reprimand, observation and suggestion) could be replaced with stricter ones only if the relevant article stipulates punishments with signs of both forms of imprudent guilt or if there is an imprudent guilt in the actions of an official.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)