One of the goals of criminal punishment is to restore social justice. The legislator does not disclose this goal, while the doctrine of criminal law offers various options regarding its understanding. With regard to crimes, as a result of which material damage is caused, the specified purpose is expressed in restoring the property fund of the injured person by bringing it to the state that it was before the theft was committed. From the point of view of the authors, the imposition of the main penalty in the form of a fine for committing a crime with material damage does not allow achieving the goal of restoring social justice. This is due to the fact that the entire amount of the fine is collected in the federal budget, no deductions are made to the injured person. At the same time, in order to restore the property losses suffered by the victim as a result of the crime committed, a civil claim is brought against the guilty person. In fact, in such a situation, the guilty person bears double financial responsibility: as part of the execution of criminal punishment in the form of a fine and satisfaction of the claims presented by the civil plaintiff. In order to ensure the achievability of the goal of restoring social justice, criminal punishment in the form of a fine for crimes with property damage and the exclusion of double liability of the guilty person, it seems advisable to establish at the legislative level the recovery of the fine amount not only to the state’s income, but also to the injured person.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neshataev et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: