A critical analysis of the system's features in the list of punishments: where does the ladder of punishments lead?

Abstract

Introduction. In criminal law doctrine the consolidated term for the catalogue of penalties enshrined in Art. 44 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has become the notion of a “system of penalties”, frequently referred to as the “ladder of penalties”. The author questions the existence of systemic features in that catalogue and proposes to assess the list of penalties against general systems criteria.Objective. The aim of the study is a critical examination of the list of penalties provided by Art. 44 Criminal Code for conformity with systemness criteria (hierarchy, interdependence of elements and emergence) and the development of proposals to enhance its internal coherence and practical effectiveness.Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the research comprises systems theory and legal philosophy, doctrinal developments in criminal law and analysis of the normative provisions of the Criminal Code and the Penal Enforcement Code of the Russian Federation, as well as review of case law and selected sanctions (e.g. the sanction under Art. 158 Criminal Code RF). Employed methods include philosophical-theoretical analysis, systemic analysis, doctrinal (dogmatic) legal analysis, logical comparison and critical normative appraisal; a constructive, policyoriented (project-constructive) approach was applied in formulating proposals.Results. The article advances an original critique of the prevailing model: it demonstrates the absence of systemic features in the catalogue of penalties and identifies concrete inconsistencies – the incomparability of the severity of different penalties (fine, compulsory labour, deprivation of the right to hold certain offices or engage in certain activities), paradoxes regarding the placement and substantive content of arrest and deprivation of liberty, disruption of systemness following changes in the content of the penalty of restriction of liberty, the presence of “special rungs” applicable only to limited categories of persons, and inactive (dead-letter) provisions. The analysis shows that mere rearrangement of elements cannot resolve these structural problems.Conclusions. The article concludes that the current list of penalties lacks a systemic structure, undermining the logical foundations of uniform law-enforcement practice; it proposes concrete measures for revising the catalogue – separating universal and special measures, clarifying hierarchy criteria and aligning the substantive content of sanctions with their formal positioning. In particular, the authors recommend: (1) excluding from the primary list “dead” penalties (arrest and capital punishment) that have long been inoperative; (2) placing restriction of liberty after deprivation of the right to hold certain offices or engage in certain activities; (3) eliminating the possibility of applying deprivation of liberty in disparate forms that differ substantially in punitive severity (serving a sentence in a colony-settlement, serving in closed-type correctional colonies, serving as imprisonment in a penitentiary).