Introduction. The Institute of complicity in the science of the criminal law has received and continues to receive close attention. Signs of complicity, forms and types of complicity, rules to qualify crimes committed in complicity, and much more are discussed in detail. However, as a rule, special attention is not paid to the issues of sentencing for a crime committed in complicity. The article deals with the problems of sentencing for a crime committed in complicity. The purpose of the study is to analyze the theory and practice of sentencing for a crime committed in complicity, to formulate their own proposals for improving the sentencing of accomplices. Materials and methods. The study is based on the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on imposing punishment for a crime committed in complicity, as well as the practice of their application. The research methodology includes the use of such methods as axiological, logical, methods of analysis and synthesis, which makes it possible to significantly expand the subject of research. However, due to the specifics of the study, the methods of system-structural and functional analysis are used as the main ones. Study results. There are no rules in the criminal law for imposing punishment to accomplices of a crime. The authors analyzed Article 67 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, dedicated to imposing punishment for a crime committed in complicity. The specified norm contains only evaluation categories. Therefore, the guideline specified in Article 67 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation when imposing punishment for a crime committed in complicity cannot be considered suitable for the practice of sentencing. Qualifying signs related to complicity are considered separately. Committing a crime as part of a certain criminal group entails imposing a more severe punishment. The authors analyzed the proposals available in the scientific literature concerning the introduction of rules for sentencing as part of a criminal group. However, the proposals are based solely on analogy with the special rules of sentencing already available in the criminal law, there is no justification for the limits of adding greater punitive measures: three-quarters, two-thirds, three-fifths, one-third, etc. It seems that this approach is not based on factual data confirming the specific limits of adding greater punitive measures. The analysis of judicial practice of sentencing for a crime committed as part of a criminal group leads to the conclusion that there are problems due to the presence of a conflict in the criminal law: the presence in the criminal law of such an aggravating circumstance as committing a crime as part of a group of persons, a group of persons by prior agreement, by an organized group or a criminal community (criminal organization) and the similarly-named qualifying signs of the elements of crimes provided for in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to the authors, it is necessary to eliminate the conflict between circumstances related to complicity, aggravating punishment, and similar signs of the corpus delict by excluding qualifying features of articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, identical to circumstances aggravating punishment, while providing for certain rules for sentencing for a crime committed as part of a criminal group. Conclusions. Since the qualified composition of a crime as part of a criminal group, as a rule, changes the category of the crime to a more serious one, in the case of a person committing a crime as part of a group of persons, a group of persons by prior agreement, an organized group or a criminal community (criminal organization), the court should be able to change the category of the crime to a more serious one and inflict a stricter punishment than stipulated by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the crime committed.

Subject of research: the institution of criminal punishment, the state of which is often assessed as a crisis. The debatable nature of the issue of the crisis of criminal punishment generates diametrically opposite judgments about the presence of a crisis, or about its absence. Purpose of research: to determine the presence or absence of a state of crisis of criminal punishment, as well as the conditionality of the existence of discussions about the crisis of criminal punishment. Methods and objects of research: the dialectical method of cognition of socio-legal phenomena is used as the methodological basis of the study. General scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis), private scientific (formal-logical, epistemological) were used. Main results of research: In conclusion, the author comes to the conclusion that close attention should be paid not to the search for alternatives to criminal punishment, but to the problems of its use (appointment and execution of punishment). The establishment of the rules of sentencing corresponding to modern realities will ensure an increase in its effectiveness, uniformity of law enforcement practice and will contribute to overcoming the so-called "punishment crisis".

Subject of research: is the norms of the criminal law devoted to the purposes of criminal punishment. Purpose of the study is to determine the purpose and objectives of punishment, as well as the need for their legislative consolidation. Methods of research: due to the specifics of the study, the methods of system-structural and functional analysis are used as the main ones. Main results of research: since punishment is a consequence of the commission of a crime, it is self-sufficient and does not need an essential goal-setting, as a result of the conducted research, we believe that it is necessary to abandon the formulation of the purpose of punishment in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.