Общие начала назначения наказания определяют универсальные требования при назначении уголовного наказания. Обобщенный характер требований, продиктованных необходимостью соблюдения принципов уголовного законодательства, не означает их абстрактность. Индивидуализация наказания в соответствии со специальными правилами назначения наказания (ст. 62-70 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации) невозможна без учета правил общих. Автор статьи подчеркивает конкретность законодательных установлений и их значимость для назначения справедливого наказания. Цель настоящей публикации-выявить позицию высшей судебной инстанции страны по вопросам об общих началах назначения наказания. Для достижения поставленной цели автором были реализованы задачи: проведен анализ практики Верховного Суда Российской Федерации за 2011-2015 гг. по вопросам соблюдения судами общих начал назначения наказания; выявлены типичные примеры неисполнения требований ст. 60 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации. Видение проблемы освещено с учетом разъяснений постановления Пленума Верховного Суда Российской Федерации «О практике назначения судами Российской Федерации уголовного наказания» от 22 декабря 2015 г. № 58. Автор публикации выражает надежду, что конкретизация понятия «справедливое наказание» приведет к снижению количества обвинительных приговоров, отмененных или измененных по причине их несправедливости. Ключевые слова: наказание, справедливость, назначение наказания, общие начала назначения наказания, характер и степень общественной опасности, личность виновного, смягчающие и отягчающие наказание обстоятельства.

The actively defended idea of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the inclusion of an offencse  of criminal misconduct in the criminal legislation was reflected in the revised draft federal law submitted to the  Parliament on October 13, 2020. The purpose of the study is to determine the key changes in the content of the  institutions of criminal misconduct and other measures of a criminal law nature proposed for consolidation in the  Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to assess the objective need of the reforms initiated by the Supreme  Court of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis is a set of methods of scientific knowledge. General  scientific (analysis and synthesis, dialectics) and specific scientific research methods (system structural, formal legal)  were used. A comparative analysis of draft laws allows us to classify the substantive content of acts constituting a  criminal misconduct as key changes and the modification of other measures of a criminal legal nature. The authors  critically assess the idea underlying the classification of acts as criminal misconduct. By laying in the criteria for  the isolation of acts that are minimal in terms of the degree of danger, not legally significant elements of corpus  delicti, but the types and amount of punishments, the lack of criminal experience, the interests of the business  community, the developers of the draft law violate the system of law, since the proposed approach excludes the  assessment of the public danger of the act based on the significance of the protected by the criminal the law of  public relations. The meaning of the differentiation of criminal liability declared by the initiator of the reforms is  lost with the proposed duplication of other measures applied both to persons who have committed a criminal  misconduct and to those guilty of committing crimes of small or medium gravity, and the proposed conditional  nature of other measures levels the idea of liberalizing the criminal law. The paper focuses on the provisions of  the project that require revision and additional comprehension.

The relevance of research. Allocating compensatory actions a place either in the system of coercive measures or in the arsenal of stimulating measures, the legislator took the path of strengthening private interests, expanding the grounds for exemption from criminal liability, and reducing the requirements for post-crime behavior of the accused. The revealed legislative transformation of the restorative actions of the guilty party laid the foundation for the reevaluation of their content by a law enforcement officer. By recognizing as optional the solely personal participation of the offender in compensation for damage, as well as transferring redressing of harm from certain definitions to evaluative ones, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court laid the foundation for forming practice in a new direction, the study of which is the purpose of this article . Research results. Critically assessing the emerging practice, the authors raise the questions of justification for the release of those guity, who personally did nothing for the state forgiveness, as well as justification for courts to refer to mitigation of harm, actions being far from compensatory. The paper substantiates the conclusion that the solely judicial discretion in determining the redress of harm conceals not only corruption risks, but also threatens the uniform application of the law. The accumulated experience does not allow development of universal criteria that allow to determine not only sufficient, but also the minimum necessary actions of the perpetrator to smooth down the harm caused by a crime infringing on public interests. The Plenum of the Supreme Court clarifications, which exclude recognition as compensatory actions of the guilty party to terminate the criminal offense, and also form active repentance in content, can facilitate the prompt elimination of defective law enforcement. The methodological basis is formed by general scientific (analysis, synthesis, and dialectics) and special scientific research methods (historical and legal, systemic and structural, formal and legal).