English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Criminal sentencing for the completed offence and the related judicial discretion at the selection of type and amount of penalty to a liable person is not a new practice for criminal legislation, including Russian. On the one part, judicial discretion is a necessary condition for differentiation and individualization of punishment to a perpetrator; on the other part, it has a propensity for corruption. It should be noted that the list of the judicial discretion grounds includes ambiguous rules set forth in the legislation; discrepancies between standards of different sector profile; misregulating of relations that became the judicial matter; legal provisions; evaluative legislative notions and other circumstances, objectively causing judicial discretion. The grounds specified are present both at the application of punishments both in whole, and at the application of punishments alternative to confinement, in particular.

Judicial Discretion and Issues of Its Implementation at the Application of Punishments Alternative to Confinement