Assessment of Justice in Crimes Against Property and Punishments

The authors analyze the norms related to crimes against property and punishments through the lens of justice, where the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the crime and consider all circumstances, including the perpetrator’s motives. The authors assess the effectiveness of rehabilitating the criminal and their return to normal life after serving the sentence (general and specific prevention) as one of the aspects of implementing the principle of just punishment. Considering the idea of justice, the authors compare the severity of punishment (deprivation of liberty) for car theft and theft, concluding that they correspond to justice. The authors conclude that the paragraph “г” of part 3 of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not differentiate punishment depending on the method of committing the crime. A unified sanction is provided for embezzlement from a bank account or electronic funds. Furthermore, the authors note a more lenient punishment for computer fraud and a more severe punishment for fraud. According to the authors, it is advisable to supplement paragraph two of Part 1 of Article 159.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with imprisonment for up to two years. The research examines situations where, with similar characteristics of crimes and public danger of actions, the criminal liability of the subjects of the crime differs depending on the accused’s status, contradicting the idea of equality, one of the aspects of justice. Another shortcoming of Articles 159.3 and 159.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the lack of a fair correlation between the punishments provided by these norms and those specified in Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph “г” of part 3 of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors assess the justice of the punishments provided and those imposed for crimes against property.