Conceptual Issues of the Goals of Punishment

Introduction: the article considers the goals of punishment, their essence, evolution, and modern legal and doctrinal interpretation; these issues are among fundamental problems of penitentiary science. Aim: to study the legal nature, social conditionality, and achievability of the goals of punishment so as to identify their compliance with the modern criminal policy of Russia. Methods: the research is based on a dialectical approach to the study of social processes and phenomena. We use methods such as analysis, synthesis, comparative legal, retrospective, formal legal, logical, comparative methods; all of them are commonly used by the sciences of criminal law and criminology. We also apply private scientific methods such as the legal-dogmatic method and the method of interpretation of legal norms. Results: we conclude that the time has come to change the conceptual foundations on which the institution of the goals of punishment is based. We believe it is necessary to prevent crimes by combining criminal responsibility with education and prevention. The level of recidivism, the empirical non-verifiability of reformation, and the scientific inconsistency of the phrase “restoration of social justice” (how can we restore what should be an unshakable axiological guideline?) indicate that Russian penology should radically revise the existing punitive paradigm. The paper substantiates the thesis that no goal of punishment in the current form is fully achievable. It is known that general prevention is based on fear. However, according to criminological studies, those who are inclined to commit crimes, as a rule, are not afraid of punishment (their contempt for punishment, law and society as a whole is obviously cultivated by the criminal subculture). And law-abiding people do not commit crimes because of their inner beliefs, upbringing and culture. Thus, general prevention as a goal is ineffective. Reformation and special prevention are too formalized and do not assume scientifically verifiable (at least, legally enacted) criteria for their achieving, that is, the state of reformation itself. With regard to the restoration of social justice, this formulation seems absurd due to a misunderstanding of justice as such. In our opinion, it is an objectively established axiological system, which essentially cannot be violated by a crime, but represents a standard and a measure of evaluation. It is for a reason that it is legally defined as a requirement for a court sentence in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The goal of punishment ultimately consists in the punishment itself and in the implementation of its functions (punishment, retribution, public condemnation of the crime, protection of society from criminal encroachments). Conclusions: the present research has substantiated the necessity to carry out a legislative reform of the concept of the goals of punishment. We find this problem quite relevant, because the effectiveness of judicial and penal enforcement activities and the fate of meaningless financial costs for achieving unattainable goals depend on finding a solution to it.Keywords: punishment; goal; efficiency; restoration of social justice; crime prevention; general and special prevention; reformation of convicted persons; criminal policy; conceptual foundations