In 2003, the legislator decided to exclude the seizure of property from the realm of criminal law, which scientists assessed rather critically. Almost two decades later, despite the problems in the field of combating acquisitive crime, there have been no adjustments to this decision in essence. The paper determines the preventive potential of property seizure as a measure of punishment (in the form in which it existed before the exclusion) based on the analysis of data from the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the period from 2004 to 2020. This data includes the number of those convicted of crimes subject to seizure until 2003, as well as the proportion of convicts on these offenses in comparison with the bodies of crimes without classifying elements. The study resulted in that the hypothesis that property seizure, as an independent type of punishment, was effective, its abolition led to a significant loss of the preventive potential of the sanction, and imposition of a punishment that did not correspond to the nature and degree of social danger did not find its confirmation. Consequently, the argument that property seizure had a significant preventive potential that was lost after the 2003 legislative adjustment, at least in relation to crimes against property and banditry, is quite debatable. The effectiveness of this measure of punishment was significantly reduced by its additional and optional nature. It seems justified to correct the criminal law in terms of the introduction of imprisonment as the main punishment for bribery.

Introduction: the fact of the continued existence of the death penalty jointly with an actual ban on its use underline the negative trend of sexual assault crimes in the respect of minors and indicate the expediency of finding an answer to the question of the optimal building of a domestic criminal legal impact system. Purpose: determination of the existence prospects in the Russian criminal law of such measures of impact as chemical castration and the death penalty. Methods: the research methodology is based on dialectical materialism. Both general scientific (systemic-and-structural and Aristotelian, inductive and deductive methods, as well as analysis and synthesis) and special (legalistic, rather-legal) methods were used. Results: it is indicated that the forced use of chemical castration to persons with disorders of sexual preference could be justified, provided that problems related to the short duration of the drug’s exposure and secondary effects of its use are resolved. In the current conditions, it is permissible to apply this measure on a dispositive basis (as a basis for parole). There have been highlighted three key arguments against the death penalty: the absence of effectiveness (USA, Indonesia, Nigeria, India, Pakistan); the injustice (disproportionality) of this punishment (USA, Malaysia, India); the discriminatory nature of the death penalty (for political reasons, the criterion of race and belonging to sexual minorities (USA); according to the criterion of class/caste (Nigeria); by economic and social status and gender (India). It is concluded that these circumstances, coupled with such negative factors as judicial errors, the cost and duration of appeal procedures, the Death Row Phenomenon and the widespread Colorado Method, indicate unequivocal doctrinal support for the rejection of the death penalty as an instrument of national criminal policy. Conclusions: the refusal of the Russian Federation to use the death penalty is within the framework of a foreign trend to exclude this measure of punishment from the arsenal of law enforcement agencies due to the huge number of problems with its application and empirically unconfirmed effectiveness.

No abstract

No abstract