Punishment: a criminological approach

Print Yakov Gilinsky

Any punishment is criminal.

JI. Tolstoy

Punishing the guilty is evil .

F. Dzerzhinsky

We must get rid of the illusion that the criminal legal system is mainly a means of combating crime.

M. Foucault

The “punishment crisis” and its consequences

Punishment, along with prevention, is one of the elements of social control over crime. Criminal legal and criminological problems of punishment were actively discussed during the years of Soviet power [1] . The modern Russian system of punishment is described in all textbooks of criminal law and numerous works [2] .

Currently, most civilized countries are aware of a “crisis of punishment”, a crisis of criminal policy and criminal justice, a crisis of police control [3] . Thanks to the books of the famous Norwegian criminologist Niels Christie, translated into Russian, we can become more familiar with the problem [4] .

The “crisis of punishment” is manifested, firstly, in the fact that after the Second World War there was an increase in crime throughout the world, despite the best efforts of the police and criminal justice. Secondly, humanity has tried all possible types of criminal repression, including qualified types of the death penalty (quartering, wheeling, burning alive, etc.), without visible results (ineffectiveness of general prevention). Thirdly, as Thomas Mathiesen showed in 1974, the recidivism rate is relatively stable for each specific country (and for Russia too!) and does not decrease, which indicates the ineffectiveness of special prevention [5] . Fourthly, according to psychologists, long-term (more than five-six years) stay in places of deprivation of liberty leads to irreversible changes in the human psyche [6] . However, the destructive (and by no means “correctional” and “re-educational”) influence of imprisonment on the psyche and morality of prisoners has been known for a long time. M. N. Gernet wrote about this in detail [7] . The prison serves as a school for criminal professionalization, not as a place of correction.

Awareness of the ineffectiveness of traditional means of crime control, moreover, the negative consequences of such a common type of punishment as imprisonment, leads to the search for alternative solutions of both a strategic and tactical nature.

Firstly, with a complete abandonment of the death penalty (and this is an indispensable condition of a civilized society), imprisonment becomes the “capital punishment”, which should be used only in extreme cases, mainly when committing violent crimes and only against adult (adult) criminals . Thus, in 1984-1987 in England and Wales, as well as in Sweden, of the total number of convicts, about 20% were sentenced to imprisonment [8] , and almost half of those convicted were sentenced to a fine. In Germany in the mid-90s, the share of those sentenced to real (unconditional) imprisonment was only 11.5% of the total number of convicts, while the fine was 83.4% [9] . If in 1970 in Germany unconditional imprisonment was close to 28%, then in 2004 it was only 8% (fine - 70%) [10] . In Japan, during 1978-1982, only 3.5% of those convicted were sentenced to imprisonment, while over 95% were sentenced to a fine. This is a well-thought-out policy, because “as a result, it does not result in the stigmatization of persons who have committed criminal acts as criminals. The difficulties of resocializing criminals after excessive isolation from society are mitigated, and thus a significant contribution is made to the prevention of relapse.” [11] *.

The use of other - alternative to imprisonment - measures of punishment is expanding (limitation of freedom, including the use of electronic monitoring; community service; a “combined order” in England and Wales - a combination of community service with probation) [12] .

In Russia, to actual from 34.1% of all those convicted in 1987 to 39.5% in 1994 were sentenced imprisonment during 1986–2006. To real and conditional imprisonment - up to 88% in 2001-2006 (for more details, see Table I). The rate of decline in the share of punishments not related to imprisonment is striking: sentenced to correctional labor in 1987 - 26.1%, in 2006 - 4.8%, to a fine in 1987 - 16.8%, in 2001 , 2002 - 6.3% (with an increase by 2006 to 10.8%). Judges have forgotten how to convict to punishment that does not involve imprisonment!

Secondly , in Western European countries, Australia, Canada, and Japan, short-term imprisonment prevails. In any case, until two or three years, that is, before the onset of irreversible changes in the psyche. Thus, in the mid-90s in Germany, 21% of all those sentenced to imprisonment were sentenced to a term of up to 6 months, another 26% were sentenced to a term from 6 to 12 months (i.e., in total for a term of up to one year - about half of all sentenced to prison). 38.5% of those convicted were sentenced to a term of one to two years. Thus, for 85.5% of all those sentenced to imprisonment, the sentence did not exceed two years, while only 1.2% were sentenced to more than five years [13] . In Japan in 1994, of the total number of those sentenced to imprisonment for a term of up to one year - 17.3%, up to three years - 68.8%, and over five years - 1.3% [14] .

In Russia in 1986, of the total number of those sentenced to imprisonment for a term of up to one year, 14.1% were sentenced, from one year to two years - 21.2% (total up to two years - 35.3%), over five years - 15.4%. In 1996, respectively, for a period of up to one year - 16.1%, from one year to two years - 23.1% (up to two years in total - 39.2%), over five years - 13.7%. It is interesting that in 1926, of the total number of those sentenced to imprisonment, 70.5% were sentenced to a term of up to six months, 84.2% to just one year, and 1.8% to a term of more than five years. This once again indicates that in the first decade of Soviet power, it was still playing at democracy [15] .

Thirdly, since the safety or degradation of personality significantly depends on the conditions of serving a sentence in penitentiary institutions, in modern civilized states, a decent standard of living for prisoners is maintained whenever possible (normal food, sanitary and hygienic and “housing” conditions, medical care, opportunity to work , play sports, meet with relatives), a regime is established that does not humiliate their human dignity, and there is also a probation (test) system that makes it possible to strictly differentiate the conditions for serving a sentence depending on its term, the behavior of the prisoner, etc. [16] .

The author of these lines had the opportunity to visit prisons and other penitentiary institutions in many foreign countries in Asia, America, Europe and, of course, the former USSR and Russia. In the prisons of Western Europe, you are convinced that it is possible to completely combine the reliability of security (mainly with the help of electronic equipment, without machine gunners and dogs) and security requirements with respect for human rights and respect for his person. In one of the prisons I visited in Turku (Finland), prisoners... are given keys to their cells so that a person, when leaving it, can close the door to “his room” and open it when returning. According to the prison director, this allows prisoners to maintain their self-esteem. In Helsinki (Finland), Freiburg (Germany), prisoners live one or two people in a cell and during the day they freely walk along the corridor and visit each other. When I was in Helsinki prison, convicts were preparing a cake for the birthday of one of the prisoners in the kitchen of the block. The cells contain televisions, computers, and soft drinks. In Dublin, the warden for a long time could not understand my question: “How many convicts are in one cell?” “Of course - one. Strangers can’t live together.”

Fourthly, proposals are increasingly being made for the formation and development of alternative, non-criminal justice to resolve the “criminal-victim” relationship, for the transition from “retributive justice” to restorative justice ] [17 . The essence of this strategy is to use a benevolent and disinterested mediator (something like an “arbiter”) to resolve the relationship between the victim and the offender. In many cases of acquisitive crimes, the victim is more interested in real compensation for the damage caused to him than in “jailing” the perpetrator (and, as a rule, waiting for many years for the results of the fulfillment of obligations under a civil claim satisfied in a criminal trial). And the person who committed this crime would rather be ready to compensate for the damage than to “go to prison.” The experience of such a solution to the “criminal-victim” conflict actually exists in those countries where community ties and the authority of elders are still strong, and is gradually being introduced in other states. Domestic experience is presented in the “Bullets of Restorative Justice”, published by the Public Center “Judicial Reform” [18] .

The problem of alternative justice is especially relevant in relation to juvenile delinquency.

In general, we are talking about a transition from a “war on crime” strategy to ” strategy a “harm reduction . This is directly stated in the 11th recommendation of the report of the US National Commission on Criminal Justice: “change the criminal policy agenda from “war” to “peace”” [19] .

“Reduce expectations of imprisonment and pay more attention to community correction,” advises Stephen Burcan in the 14th of 23 recommendations in his book [20] .

Deprivation of liberty

In the modern world, the second heaviest punishment after the death penalty (absolutely unacceptable in a civilized society) is the deprivation of liberty of the convicted person. This type of punishment appeared much later than the death penalty. Thus, in the medieval German codes - the “Saxon Mirror” (1230) and “Carolina” (1532) - in addition to the death penalty, cropping of ears, cutting of the nose, gouging out of eyes, chopping off fingers and hands, torture with hot tongs, etc. - imprisonment were provided for took third place. Only from the 16th century did imprisonment become widespread, and from the 18th century it became the most common type of punishment.

Numerous reforms of the prison (the Philadelphia or Pennsylvania system of solitary confinement, the Bornean system of silence, the English and Irish progressive systems, the Borstal system of reformatoriums, concentration camps, modern systems of “correction” and probation, etc.) did not change its essence: the convict was deprived of his freedom, was under guards, if necessary, strictly adhere to the regime prescribed by a particular prison system. Escaping from prison is in itself a crime that entails additional punishment (most often a new “term”),

“All the shortcomings of the prison are known. It is known to be dangerous, if not useless. And yet no one “sees” how to replace it. She is a disgusting solution, which, apparently, cannot be done without” [21] .

So:

• The institution of prison does not last forever. It arose historically and changed throughout history.

• Prison (deprivation of liberty) does not correct anyone; it serves as a school for improving criminal skills and professionalism; it cripples people mentally and even physically. Maintaining the penitentiary system requires enormous financial costs, placing a heavy burden on taxpayers. Imprisonment is an ineffective punishment with many negative side effects.

• At the same time, prison is “irreplaceable” in the sense that humanity has not yet come up with anything better (more effective) to protect society from serious criminals. (Let us recall, however, that for many centuries humanity did not find means to prevent dangerous actions on the part of the mentally ill, and then they were chained, kept on a par with those convicted of crimes. Only the development of medicine and psychiatry made it possible to abandon the barbaric treatment of persons suffering from severe mental disorders .)

• Mankind is slowly, gropingly, step by step, groping for ways to gradually replace imprisonment with other measures of social control - fines, restriction of freedom, public works, other alternative measures of influence, alternative justice.

Penitentiary practice

One of the integral indicators of the severity of criminal justice is the level of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. Comparative data for a number of countries over several years22 are presented in Table. 2.

We see, firstly, that in most countries there is a tendency towards an increase in the prison population. This apparently prompted Niels Christie to ask the question: “Onward to a Western-style gulag?” Unfortunately, this practice is a response to the populistly inflated fear of the population, especially the “middle class,” of crime and the “mafia.” Secondly, Russia and the USA are stubbornly fighting for 1-2 place in this shameful list. By the way, this is the second reason, along with the preservation of the death penalty, why I cannot classify the United States as a completely civilized country...

As already noted, to assess the severity of such a punishment as imprisonment, the actual conditions of serving the sentence are of great importance. There are huge differences between countries on this criterion. “The extent of deprivation that prison inflicts on people varies significantly. Some prisoners live in single rooms with individual sinks and toilets, televisions and personal computers, perhaps taking a university correspondence course and meeting privately with spouses or partners once a week. Others live in spartan huts in the camp and work in prison factories, contributing to the country's economy. Still others simply have nothing to do but try their best to survive in a dirty, unsanitary prison barracks, with no food or medicine other than what their families can provide ” [22] . The most favorable situation is in the countries of Western Europe, much worse in the USA, the most unfavorable conditions are in penitentiary institutions in a number of countries in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa and... Russia. Massive violations of basic human rights in penitentiary institutions of many countries contradict such fundamental international legal acts as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. A special international document aimed at ensuring minimum requirements for the conditions of detention of prisoners are the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, as well as the New European Prison Rules (2006) [23] .

We can get a fairly complete picture of the state of the prison institutions of Tsarist Russia from the works of domestic authors (S.K. Gogel, A.F. Kistyakovsky, D.G. Talberg) and, above all, M.N. Gernet [24] , as well as from extensive memoirs and fiction (for example, “Notes from the House of the Dead” by F. M. Dostoevsky).

As for the Soviet period of Russian history, for a long time the only available source of information about penitentiary institutions (under fear of ending up there) was the “samizdat” of “dissident” authors, starting with “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” and “The Gulag Archipelago” by A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

Official and scientific, “without emotions” information appeared initially with the stamp “DSP” (“For official use”) [25] , and then in the open press only in the 70-80s of the 20th century. Valuable materials are presented in the results of periodic (1970, 1975, 1979, 1989, 1994, 1999) special censuses of convicts conducted by the Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs together with the bodies executing punishment [26] .

The works of G. Khokhryakov and V. Pirozhkov are devoted to the prison subculture and psychology of prisoners [27] . There is a lot of information in the book

A. I. Zubkova, Yu. I. Kalinina, V. D. Sysoeva [28] .

Extensive literature covering in detail the situation in Russian penitentiary institutions is published by the Public Center for Assistance to Criminal Justice Reform (headed by V. F. Abramkin) [29] .

A lot of data about Russian “zones” is available in bulletins, books and other materials of Amnesty International, Penal Reform International, International Society for Human Rights (Internationale Geselschaft fur Menschenrechte"), Moscow Helsinki group.

Since 2004, the monthly magazine “Nevolya” has been published, containing a wealth of factual material about the current state of the Russian penitentiary system.

Let us note some features of the modern Russian penitentiary system. It should be noted that the numerous shortcomings and vices given below do not exclude the fact that many employees of penitentiary institutions have conscientiously performed their official duties, who (the employees) themselves often become hostages of the system.

Quantitative indicators [30]

As of September 1, 2007, over 886.4 thousand people were kept in Russian penitentiary institutions of all types, or about 617 per 100,000 population. 90% of prisoners were in institutions of the FSIN (Federal Penitentiary Service) system. In total, as of September 1, 2007, this system included 766 correctional colonies (IC), 62 educational colonies (BK) for minors, 216 pre-trial detention centers (SIZO), 7 prisons and 160 institutions operating as pre-trial detention centers. In addition, the Ministry of Defense has disciplinary battalions in which military personnel convicted of committing crimes serve their sentences, and under the auspices of the Ministry of Health there are special psychiatric hospitals (SPH) for convicts recognized as mentally ill.

VIC held 718.1 thousand people, in pre-trial detention centers and prisons - 156.2 thousand people, in BK - 11.8 thousand people. There were 63.7 thousand women in penitentiary institutions, and 732 children in 11 children’s homes at women’s penal colonies [31] .

The dynamics of prisoners in Russian penitentiary institutions is as follows: 1998 - over 1 million 100 thousand people, 1999 - over 1 million 4 thousand people, 2000 - 975,072 people, 2001 - 980 151 people, 2002 - 877,383 people, 2003 - 847,004 people, 2004 - 763 1 15 people, 2005 - 823,451 people, 2006 - 871,693 people, 2007 - over 888 thousand people. Thus, the trend of a reduction in the number of prisoners in 1998–2004 gave way to an increase in this indicator in 2005–2007 [32] .

Occupancy rate of penitentiary institutions . In 1999-2000, pre-trial detention centers were overcrowded by 2-2.3 times, and in 2001 by 1.6 times compared to the standards. On average, there were 1.73 square meters per person. m of chamber area, and in some institutions - 0.5 sq. m, so the prisoners were forced to sleep in turns. From the explanations of representatives of the State Duma and members of international organizations: “Prisoners have to take turns sleeping,” “Not all prisoners have the opportunity to sit down... The table is designed for a maximum of 10 people. The majority of prisoners have to eat while standing,” “The rest stand as if on a tram, because they don’t even have room to sit on the floor.” General regime correctional facilities are overcrowded by 1.1 times, institutions for tuberculosis patients - by 1.45 times. In 2002-2006, the pre-trial detention center population also exceeded the standards, but significantly less.

Nutrition. The estimated cost of the minimum food standard per prisoner in the first half of 1998 was 225 rubles. per month, 142 rubles were actually financed from the budget. per month, by the middle of the year expenses were reduced to 22 rubles. per month... From a conversation with the deputy. Minister of Justice Yu. I. Kalinin: “We allocate only 67 kopecks from the budget for food for one prisoner per day.” From the stories and letters of prisoners: “Dogs are not fed like we are,” “Here we are starved on purpose - this is the main injustice, that I, like some kind of animal, are being starved on purpose.” In 2001, it was planned to finance food per prisoner at the rate of 22 rubles, but in fact the amount did not exceed 15-17 rubles. per person.

The sanitary and hygienic conditions in places of deprivation of liberty are below any criticism. This primarily applies to pre-trial detention centers (SIZOs), but to a large extent also to colonies (IK, BK). In the pre-trial detention center, the cells are overcrowded, stuffy, there is a lack of oxygen, and at the same time, “food” and a “toilet” (the so-called “bowl”) are in the same room. Let's give the floor to outside observers (from domestic human rights organizations and international bodies): “The door of a prison cell opens and a hot stench pours out. It’s scary to enter this lair, where there is darkness and dark rags hanging from the ceiling (this is prison underwear)”, “There is almost no light coming through the heavily barred window... It seems that flies and cigarette butts are everywhere, and there is almost no air movement”, “When entering a common cell, a wave of suffocating, heavy and foul-smelling gas with the smell of sweat, urine and feces hits your face... The prisoners are fed in the cell, and they defecate in the cell.” Every year in the summer, prisoners in a number of pre-trial detention centers die from oxygen starvation and heatstroke. From a letter from a woman serving a sentence in one of the correctional facilities: “There is no sewerage here... In fact, in the summer we live surrounded on all sides by “incense” and flies... In winter, there are constant interruptions in the sewerage machines... Pits [sewage disposal - I .G.] are overflowing, closing the bathhouse, laundress, washbasins and toilets in the sections. What kind of cleanliness and basic hygiene can we talk about?”

For the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that by 2003 the situation had changed for the better, but continues to remain difficult.

Morbidity. As of January 1, 1999, there were over 2.3 thousand HIV-infected people and 92 thousand patients with active tuberculosis in the penitentiary institutions of the GUIN system of the Ministry of Justice. Tuberculosis is one of the terrible problems of modern Russian prisons. Every year, about 30 thousand tuberculosis patients are admitted to pre-trial detention centers, and 35-40 thousand convicts fall ill with tuberculosis again. At the same time, there are no normal conditions for keeping such patients, the necessary nutrition, and the need for medicines and medical equipment is met only by 20-25%.

According to the Federal Penitentiary Service, the situation has begun to improve in recent years. Thus, in 2006, compared to 2001, the number of patients with active tuberculosis decreased by half, the incidence decreased by 2.5 times, and mortality decreased by 3.8 times [33] . However, according to international organizations, the increase in tuberculosis patients continued at least until 2004, and the increase in HIV-infected people from 1998 to 2003 was more than 40 times [34] . As of January 1, 2007, the total number of HIV-infected people in penitentiary institutions was more than 39 thousand people [35] .

According to a certificate from the head of the Medical Directorate of the GUIN (March 1999), “...due to a lack of space in specialized anti-tuberculosis institutions, approximately 15 thousand tuberculosis patients are kept in isolated sections of the penitentiary, and about 2 thousand are kept among healthy convicts. Planned surgical operations have almost completely stopped; morbidity, mortality and disability rates for convicts are steadily increasing. The provision of medical equipment and equipment does not exceed 15% of what is required.”

A practically incurable drug-resistant form of tuberculosis (DR-TB) is developing in Russian penitentiary institutions; 20 thousand prisoners have already been infected with it. Due to the population of millions of prisoners and the highest level of prisoners per 100,000 population, as well as the rapid spread of drug-resistant TB, the country has turned out to be the main source of the spread of this disease in the world, which has long worried the world community [36] .

Torture. Firstly, the very conditions of being in a pre-trial detention center, or even in correctional facilities, are of a tortured nature (which was directly stated by the head of the GUIN of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, and then by the GUIN of the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Penitentiary Service, General Yu. Kalinin: “The conditions in our pre-trial detention centers according to international standards can be qualify as torture. This is deprivation of sleep, air, space").

Secondly, torture takes place in penitentiary institutions both to obtain “confessions” from those under investigation in pre-trial detention centers, and to punish “malicious violators of the regime” in correctional facilities. As already noted, employees of various police services commit illegal physical force against detainees . There are no exceptions to the staff of penitentiary institutions. In the pre-trial detention center there are so-called “press huts” - cells in which people under investigation who do not admit their guilt are placed, where the role of executioners is performed by other prisoners, of course, for certain benefits [37] . The "White Swans" - torture colonies where "malicious regime violators" from other penal colonies are sent - have become notorious. Facts of torture have been repeatedly recorded in prisoner complaints released by representatives of domestic and international human rights organizations. Some types of torture are common in various regions of Russia and are described in detail in the press (“elephant” - the use of a gas mask with interruption of breathing, “swallow” - stretching on ropes, “crucifixion of Christ” - the name speaks for itself, “envelope” - the person being tortured is folded like an envelope to send, “the death of Bonivour”), Torture became a daily practice, forcing Obshchaya Gazeta to open a permanent column “Torture as everyday life in Russia” in the late 90s (this column has recently disappeared, which does not mean the end of torture itself. ..) [38] .

Need I remind you that the use of torture contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Article 3), the Constitution of the Russian Federation ( Art. 21) and is itself recognized as a criminal offense (Art. 302 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)? However, the domestic criminal justice system is in no hurry to take action against the executioners. Thus, for the years 2002-2006, 18, 2, 4, 7, 4 crimes under Art. 302 of the Criminal Code (compulsion to testify), and the persons guilty of this crime were identified over the same years - 4, 0, 0, 2, 6!.. [39] And this is in everyday torture practice.

As a result of our study of the use of torture in five regions of Russia (St. Petersburg, Pskov, Nizhny Novgorod, Chita regions and the Komi Republic) in 2004-2005, it was found that if among the population of these regions were tortured by law enforcement officers during the year 3 4-4.6% of residents, then among those sentenced to imprisonment even before the court verdict (i.e. during the investigation), 40-60% of the accused were subjected to violence [40] .

Prison subculture [41]

When a society or state in one form or another rejects or discriminates against any group of the population, a subculture is formed with its own values, norms, language (jargon, slang), traditions, and way of life. The integration of subcultural groups is a consequence of the pressure of social control and is inversely proportional to it in degree. That is why the more tolerant and open a society is, the less “evil” its subcultures are. The conditions outlined above for serving a sentence in penitentiary institutions cannot but stimulate the formation of a prison subculture [42] .

Over many decades, a stable subculture has formed in domestic penitentiary institutions with its own hierarchy (most clearly expressed in the male “zone”), norms (“thieves’ law,” modern “concepts”), and language (“thieves’ fenya”). Like any culture, the prison subculture changes over time. Let us dwell briefly on the current structure of the male prison population.

Firstly, these are informal leading groups (“thieves”, “thieves”, “black suit”). According to G.F. Khokhryakov, in the 90s they made up 5-18% of prisoners. This group (caste) has its own leader - “godfather”, “authority”. “Thieves are the real power in some [black] zones. - Ya. G.], a power that fights with the official power, that is, with the administration of the zone. In addition to power, thieves have privileges: the right not to work, the right to keep whatever they deem necessary from the common fund. The thieves also have responsibilities. The right boss is obliged to ensure that the zone is “warmed up”, that is, it receives food, tea, tobacco, vodka, and clothing through illegal means. He is also obliged to resolve disputes that arise between other prisoners, and generally not allow any clashes between them, to ensure that no one is unfairly punished, offended, or deprived” [43] .

Secondly, convicts collaborating with the administration of the institution (“goats”, “active”, “bitches”, “red color”). Penitentiary institutions, where the administration has real power, are called the “red zone”.

Thirdly, the bulk (“neutral”, “men”, “gray suit”), making up 70-75% of prisoners.

Finally, fourthly, “outcasts” (“lowered”, “offended”, “roosters”, “blue suit”). They make up 3-11% of prisoners. They fall into the “outcasts” for various kinds of serious offenses, from the point of view of the prison community, the “thieves’ law”, and also due to their personal characteristics - unkempt, degenerate, passive homosexuals. “Violators of community norms are indeed rejected: they have their own and, of course, worse sleeping places; your own table in the dining room, seats in the cinema hall. They wash themselves in the bathhouse separately and last... They find themselves in a kind of “double isolation”: first they were fenced off by society, and then expelled from their own community. It punished them not only with expulsion, but also condemned them to the worst and most difficult work... Dirty, ragged, with hunted expressions on their faces, with eyes in which fear was forever frozen... They are saved only by the fact that informal rules of behavior prohibit communication with them. They are untouchable" [44] .

This structure is of a caste nature. The transition from caste to caste “up” is extremely difficult, and for the “outcast” is impossible. Transfer from the first three castes to the fourth is possible as a punishment. The laws of the community are religiously observed, especially among the “youngsters” - in BK [45] . As a result, it is in BK that unprecedented cruelty towards each other reigns for minors.

The administration of penitentiary institutions often tries to exploit the contradictions between the “black” and “red” suits. The notorious “bitch war” of the late 40s and early 50s of the last century claimed thousands of lives, but did not achieve the result intended by the jailers - the extermination of the prison subculture at the hands of the prisoners themselves [46] . Unfortunately, history teaches poorly, and today the administration of colonies is trying to attract many prisoners to the “discipline and order sections” (“red”), resorting to intimidation, beatings, and torture. Broken convicts, entering these sections, begin to “press” other prisoners, becoming their enemies with all the ensuing consequences. However, the principle of “divide and conquer” has been known since the times of Ancient Rome and is used by unsuccessful authorities much more widely than only in penitentiary institutions.

As a result of the unjustified and often illegal strengthening of the regime, 2007 was marked by a significant number of mass unrest and riots in the penal colony and prisons of the country [47] . In total, in 2007, at least 30 cases of unrest were recorded in Russian penitentiary institutions. As world experience shows, waves of prison riots always follow an increase in mass repression. It is difficult to find a rational explanation for the exorbitant cruelty that has again struck the domestic penitentiary system

I would like to remind you again and again: reducing the prison population and ending prison repressions is not a tribute to “liberal humanism” (although humanism should not be abandoned), but a requirement of public safety. A society that allows unreasonable pressure on convicts sooner or later gets them back (after serving their sentence), but now they hate everyone and everything, which is fraught with further criminalization of society itself, its “prisonization.”

[1] Galperin I.M. Punishment: social functions, application practice. M.: Legal literature, 1983; Karpets I.I. Punishment: Social, legal and criminological problems. M.: Legal literature, 1973; Noy I. S. The essence and functions of criminal punishment in the Soviet state: political and legal research. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1973; Shargorodsky M.D. Punishment, its goals and effectiveness. L.: Leningrad State University, 1973.

[2] For example: Milyukov S.F. Russian system of punishment. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Law Institute of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, 1998; Starkov O. V., Milyukov S. F. Punishment: criminal law and criminological analysis. St. Petersburg: Legal Center Press, 2001.

[3] Mathisen Т. The Politics of Abolition. Essays in Political action Theory // Scandinavian Studies in Criminology. Oslo; London, 1974; Albanese J. Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice. Third Edition. Apocalypse Publishing, Co, 1990; Hendries J., Byers B. Crisis Intervention in Criminal Justice. Charles C. Thomas Publishing, 1996; Rotwax H. Guilty. The Collapse of Criminal Justice. NY: Random House, 1996; и др.

[4] Christie H. Limits of punishment. M., 1985; It's him. The fight against crime as an industry: Forward to the Western-style Gulag. M., 2001; It's him. Acceptable amount of crime. St. Petersburg, 2006.

[5] Mathiesen, Th. The Politics of Abolition. Essays in Political action Theory // Scandinavian Studies in Criminology. Oslo, London, 1974.

[6] Pirozhkov V.F. The influence of social isolation in the form of imprisonment on the psychology of a convicted person // Issues in the fight against crime. M., 1981. Issue. 35. pp. 40-50; Khokhryakov T. F. Paradoxes of prison. M., 1991.

[7] Gernet M. N. In prison: Essays on prison psychology. Legal Publishing house of Ukraine, 1930.

[8] Information on the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Digest. Home Office, 1999. No 4. P. 50.

[9] Criminal justice system in Germany: facts and figures. Bonn: Federal Ministry of Justice, 1996. P. 30.

[10] Second Periodic Safety Report. Short version. Berlin, 2006. P. 84.

[11] Ueda K. Crime and criminology in modern Japan. M., 1989. S. 98, 176-177.

[12] Cm: Stern V. Alternatives to prisons: Reflections and experience. London; M., 1996; Clear T., Tepu K. Correction outside prison walls // Criminology / Ed. D. Shelley. St. Petersburg, 2003. pp. 575-600; Electronic Monitoring: The Trials and their Results. London: Home Office, 1990; Junger-Tas, J. Alternatives to Prison Sentences: Experiences and Developments. Amsterdam; NY, 1994.

[13] Criminal justice system in Germany, ibid. p. 32.

[14] Summary of the White Paper on Crime. Government of Japan. Research and Training Institute Ministry of Justice. 1996. P. 64.

[15] Judicial statistics: Crime and criminal record (modern analysis of data from criminal judicial statistics in Russia 1923-1997). M., 1998. P. 23.

[16] Подробнее см.: Correctional Institutions in Japan. Correctional Bureau Ministry of Justice, 1985; Ingstrup O. Only those who believe can stay the Course in turbulent Times: A Value-based, strategic approach to the Management and development of Corrections. Canadian Centre for Management Development, 1995; Champion D. J. Corrections in the United States. A Contemporary Perspective. Fourth Edition. NJ.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005; Seiter R. Corrections: An Introduction. NJ.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.

[17] Zehr X. Restorative justice: A new look at crime and punishment. M., 1998; Consedine J. Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime. Ploughshares Publication, 1995; Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social and Restorative Justice: Special Issue on The Phenomenon of Restorative Justice, 1998. Vol. I. No I.

[18] Restorative Justice Journal (perspectives for criminal and juvenile justice). M., 2000. Issue. I; Bulletin of restorative justice (Russia: at the beginning of the movement). M., 2001. Issue. 2. Cm. See also: Restorative juvenile justice: Collection of materials. M., 2005.

[19] Donziger S. The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice Comission. Harper Collins Published, Inc, 1996. P. 218.

[20] Barkan S. Criminology. A Sociological Understanding. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, 1997. P. 542.

[21] Foucault M. Supervise and punish: The birth of the prison. M., 1999. P. 339.

[22] Newman G. (Ed.) Global Report on Crime and Justice. NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. P. 318—319; Barclay G., Tavares C., Siddique A. International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 19991I Home Office Statistical Bulletin. 2001 May. Issue 6/01. P. 7; Barclay G., Tavares C. International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 200111 Home Office. 2003 October. Issue 12/03. P. 7; Aebi M., Stadnic N. Council of Europe. Space I (Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics). Survey 2005. Strasbourg, 2007. P. 19.

[23] Stern V. Sin against the future: Imprisonment in the world. M., 1998. S. 11 - 12.

[24] For more information, see: Making Standards Work: A Practical Guide to Effectively Implementing International Prison Rules. M., 1998.

[25] Gernet M. N. History of the Tsar’s Prison. T. 1-5. M., 1951-1956.

[26] 11 issues of the All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR (1972) based on materials from the special census of convicts in 1970; Mikhlin A. S. The role of social and demographic properties of the personality of convicts. M.: VNII MIA, 1970.

[27] Cm. the previous link, as well as: Mikhlin A. S. General characteristics of convicts (based on materials from the special census of 1989). M.: VNII MIA, 1991; Characteristics of suspects and accused held in pre-trial detention centers: based on materials from the special census of 1999 / Ed. A. S. Mikhlin. M.: Jurisprudence, 2000. T. I: Characteristics of those sentenced to imprisonment: based on materials from the special census of 1999 / Ed. A. S. Mikhlin. M.: Jurisprudence, 2001. T. 2.

[28] Pirozhkov V.F. Laws of the criminal world of youth. Criminal subculture. Tver, 1994; It's him. Criminal psychology. M., 1998; Khokhryakov G.F. Formation of legal consciousness

among convicts. M., 1985; It's him. The paradoxes of prison. M., 1991.

[29] Zubkov A.I., Kalinin Yu.I., Sysoev V.D. Penitentiary institutions in the system of the Ministry of Justice of Russia: History and modernity. M., 1998. Cm. See also: The situation of prisoners in modern Russia. M., 2003.

[30] Abramkin V.F. Searching for a way out: Crime, criminal policy and places of detention in the post-Soviet space. M., 1996; The prison world through the eyes of political prisoners / Ed. V. Abramkin M., 1993; Letters from zone - 87 / Ed. V. Abramkin. M., 1993; Prison is not a woman's business, 2000; Children in prison / Ed. V. Abramkin. M., 2001; Be careful, prison... M., 2006, etc.

[31] Here and below, in addition to the above-mentioned sources, information given in: Man and Prison: Collection of information materials / Ed. V. Abramkin. M., 1998; Materials for the hearing “The critical situation in the institutions of the GUIN of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, and measures to overcome the crisis.” M., 1999; "Captivity" magazine.

[32] Trouble. 2007. No. 13. P. 31-34.

[33] For more details, see: Gilinsky Ya. Will we catch up and overtake America? 11 Bondage. 2007. No. 13. P. 26-30.

[34] Trouble. 2007. No. 12. P. 30.

[35] The situation of prisoners... P. 147.

[36] Trouble. 2007. No. 11. P. 34.

[37] See: The situation of prisoners in modern Russia. pp. 147, 72-81; Sentenced to death? The problem of tuberculosis in prisons in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. M., 2001.

[38] See, for example, about torture chamber No. 721 of the St. Petersburg pre-trial detention center in: Crucifixion in “Crosses”-2 // Rush Hour. 1998. March 4.

[39] See See also: Torture in Russia: “This hell invented by people.” London: Amnesty International, April 1997.

[40] Crime, criminology, criminological protection. M.: Russian Criminological Association, 2007. P. 357.

[41] Sociology of violence. Arbitrariness of law enforcement agencies through the eyes of citizens. Nizhny Novgorod, 2007; Gilinsky Ya. I. Sociology about torture in modern Russia 11 Captivity. 2006. No. 10. P. 19-28.

[42] For more information about the prison subculture, see Valery Abramkin’s article “Prison Subculture” in this issue.

[43] Gilinsky Ya. I. Subculture behind bars // Soviet ethnography. 1990. No. 2. P. 100-103.

[44] Abramkin V., Chizhov Y. How to survive in a Soviet prison: To help the prisoner. Krasnoyarsk, 1992. P. 98.

[45] Khokhryakov G.F. Paradoxes of prison. P. 82.

[46] About the terrible consequences of this, see: GabyshevL. Odlyan, or Air of Freedom. M., 1990.

[47] For more details, see: Sidorov A. Great battles of the criminal world. Book 2. Rostov-on-Don, 1999. pp. 65-169.

[48] ​​For more details, see: Captivity. 2007. No. 12. P. 61-64; Captivity. 2007. No. 13. P. 61-73; Captivity. 2007. No. 14. P. 24-30.

European standards of detention in places of deprivation of liberty. Why and for what do people go to prison?