ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
2016
№
3
♦
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
58
Адабиётлар
рўйхати
:
1.
Насриев
И
.
Шахсий
номулкий
ҳуқуқларни
амалга
ошириш
ва
муҳофаза
қилишнинг
фуқаролик
-
ҳуқуқий
муаммолари
. –
Т
.
Ғафур
Ғулом
номидаги
нашриёт
-
матбаа
ижодий
уйи
, 2006. –
Б
37.
2.
Урофский
Мелвин
И
.
Права
человека
.
Свобода
личности
и
Билль
о
правах
. –
США
, 2004. –
С
. 48.
3.
Права
человека
:
итоги
века
,
тенденции
,
перспективы
/
Под
общ
.
ред
.
Е
.
А
.
Лукашевой
. –
М
.,
2002. –
С
. 5.
4.
Кадников
Б
.
Н
.
Уголовно
-
правовая
охрана
непри
-
косновенности
частной
жизни
. –
М
., 2008. –
С
.6.
5.
Балашкина
И
.
В
.
Неприкосновенность
частной
жизни
как
объект
конституционно
-
правового
регулирования
//
Право
и
политика
. – 2007. –
№
7. –
С
.
92 – 105.
6.
Беляева
Н
.
Г
.
Право
на
неприкосновенность
частной
жизни
:
соотношение
международно
-
правовой
и
внутригосударственной
регламентации
:
Дисс
. ...
канд
.
юрид
.
наук
. –
Казань
, 2000. –
С
.4.
7.
Бюллетень
международных
договоров
. – 1995. –
№
2.
8.
Международные
акты
о
правах
человека
:
Сборник
документов
. –
М
., 1998. –
С
. 723.
9.
Арабская
хартия
прав
человека
//
Вестник
МГУ
.
Серия
11 "
Право
". – 1997. –
№
5. –
С
. 71.
10.
Европейский
суд
по
правам
человека
, "Case of
Klass and Others: Judgement of 6 September 1978", Se-
ries A N 28 (1979).
Дело
Malone vs. Commissioner of
Police, 2 All E.R. 620 (1979).
См
.
также
"Secret Surveil-
lance and the European Convention on Human Rights",
Stanford Law Review 1113, 1122 (1981
г
.).
11.
Насриев
И
.
Шахсий
номулкий
ҳуқуқларни
амалга
ошириш
ва
муҳофаза
қилишнинг
фуқаролик
-
ҳуқуқий
муаммолари
. –
Т
.
Ғ
.
Ғулом
нашриёти
, 2006. –
Б
.
82-83.
12.
Закон
Франции
Об
информатике
,
картотеках
и
свободах
13.
Михеева
М
.
Р
.
Проблема
правовой
защиты
персональных
данных
(
исследование
по
программе
малых
грантов
).
14.
Иванский
В
.
П
.
Правовая
защита
информации
о
частной
жизни
граждан
.
Опыт
современного
правового
регулирования
.
Монография
. –
М
.:
Изд
-
во
РУДН
, 1999.
–
С
. 69.
15.
Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг
конституциясига
шарҳ
. –
Т
.
Ўзбекистон
, 2013. –
Б
. 63-64.
16.
Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг
конституциясига
шарҳ
. –
Т
.
Ўзбекистон
, 2013. –
Б
.137.
17.
Насриев
И
.
Шахсий
номулкий
ҳуқуқларни
амалга
ошириш
ва
муҳофаза
қилишнинг
фуқаролик
-
ҳуқуқий
муаммолари
. –
Т
.
Ғ
.
Ғулом
нашриёти
, 2006. –
Б
.
82-83.
18.
Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг
конституциясига
шарҳ
. –
Тошкент
:
Ўзбекистон
, 2013. –
Б
. 146.
19.
Абдуллаев
Б
. “Habeas Corpus Act” –
институти
ва
унинг
тарихий
ривожланиш
босқичлари
//
Ҳуқуқ
ва
бурч
. 2013. -
№
6. –
Б
19.
20.
Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Фуқаролик
кодексига
шарҳ
. I-
жилд
. –
Тошкент
: Vektor-Press, 2010. –
Б
. 281.
N. Salaev
Acting Associate Professor of the Department of
«Criminal law and criminology», TSUL
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT: THE ATTEMPT OF SOCIAL
AND PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING
Annotation:
this article is devoted to the study of
criminal punishment, which is one of the topical issues of
criminal law. The article provides an analysis in terms of
scientific, legal, social and philosophical approach such
controversial issues as the purpose, nature, and execution
of the punishment.
Key words:
crime, punishment, prevention, the pur-
pose of the punishment, impositionof a punishment,
execution of punishment, differentiation of responsibility
Аннотация
:
мазкур
мақола
жиноят
ҳуқуқидаги
энг
долзарб
мавзулардан
бири
–
жиноий
жазо
масаласига
бағишланган
.
Мақолада
жиноий
жазонинг
мақсади
унинг
моҳияти
ва
ижро
этилишига
оид
баҳс
-
мунозараларга
сабаб
бўлиб
келаётган
муаммоли
масалалар
илмий
,
ҳуқуқий
,
ижтимоий
ва
фалсафий
нуқтаи
назардан
таҳлил
этилган
.
Калит
сўзлар
:
ж
иноят
,
жазо
,
олдини
олиш
,
жазо
мақсади
,
жазо
тайинлаш
,
жазони
ижро
этиш
,
дифференциация
Аннотация
:
данная
статья
посвященаизучению
уголовного
наказания
,
которое
является
одной
из
ак
-
туальных
тем
уголовного
права
.
В
статье
проведён
анализ
с
точки
зрениянаучного
,
правового
,
социального
и
философского
подхода
таких
спорных
вопросов
,
как
цели
,
сущность
и
применение
наказания
.
Ключевые
слова
:
Преступление
,
наказание
,
предупреждение
,
цель
наказания
,
назначение
наказания
,
исполнение
наказания
,
дифференциация
ответсвенности
.
Before human civilization stay many issues, pending
its complete and comprehensive solutions. One of the
most complex and cross-cutting problems, for centuries
agitated the minds of ordinary citizens, scientists, politi-
cians, sociologists, philosophers, statesmen and religious
figures, facing the society and the state is the problem of
criminal punishment. At first glance, this problem may
seem outdated, known to everyone that has a fairly simple
solutions. And what is the true situation? No, everything is
not so simple. Even we can say that interest in science of
penology, specializing in the study of this problem is in-
creasing with each passing day. In this sense, we are talk-
ing about the purpose of criminal sanctions (what the state
needs this measure), its content (gravity or “softness”) and
application (appointment and execution of punishment).
These three components in its unity and reflect the true
fundamental value of punishment. In turn, the essence of
criminal punishment has deep philosophical meaning.
Therefore, for its deep understanding it is essential to hold
a philosophical approach.
So, the first question is - the purpose of punishment. In
the legislation of many states the purpose of punishment
carries similarity, though they have some distinctive as-
pects. But in most states and in general, the criminal law
doctrine of punishment is applied in order to re-convict,
obstruction to continue criminal activities, restoration of
social justice, and to prevent the commission of crimes
convicts and others. Unfortunately, these objectives all
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
2016
№
3
♦
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
59
cause well-founded doubts. Ordinary citizens and a group
of researchers are taking this purpose only as fiction, say-
ing that in fact the penalty rewarded the criminal state and
society. Others, in turn, noted that this position is no more
than ignorance and narrow-mindedness. In their view, the
purpose of punishment is rehabilitation of the offender and
return to society. There is also a point of view, according
to which, the criminal punishment in any country is nothing
more than a measure of protection of society from criminal
encroachments. Therefore, what would be a more correct
view? Perhaps, each of them is partially valid? Maybe all
of these ideas are wrong. Questions, questions ... and the
answer, as if not visible!
So, next question - the debate about the existence of
serious or milder punishment. In recent years, increasing
the supporters of the liberalization of criminal penalties as
one of the basic requirements of democracy. The vast
majority of countries around the world consistently
liberalize criminal laws in their system of criminal
penalties. In this sense, the focus is on improving the
efficiency of the educational function of punishment. Other
experts, meanwhile, expressed apprehension that the
liberalization of punishment may inflict serious damage to
the state's ability to provide effective response to crime. In
addition, it is noted that the liberalization of criminal
penalties will cause the birth of a certain irresponsibility in
people who are prone to commit crimes, while certainly
aroused the members of society who have suffered from
the fact of committing a crime of hatred and distrust of the
state. On this occasion, even the world’s religious leaders
stress that the principle of retaliation, “eye for an eye,
blood for blood”, proclaimed in the sacred books, is
wrongful.
In fact, what opinion carries more weight? On the one
hand, the inefficiency of grave, even very serious penalties
in the fight against crime was confirmed in a variety of
examples, there are also many reasons to prove the
effectiveness of liberal punishment to achieve penal
purpose, in recent years, it says that the punishment
should fit your substantiality content, in other words, if it
has no gravity, it loses all meaning.
So, another important issue - it is a question of applica-
tion of criminal punishment, i.e., its purpose and execu-
tion. So as to reflect the true content and nature of pun-
ishment, to achieve their objectives pursued, is of para-
mount importance its correct destination, as well as opti-
mal execution of the punishment. Therefore, no wonder
today, many experts around the world, looking for the rea-
sons for the ineffectiveness of the criminal law policy of
the state is not punishment policy, and prison policy. The
system of criminal penalties may be different, hard or soft,
liberal or oppressive vice versa, etc. But, if the penalty is
not imposed fairly and within the law, the question loses its
meaning. At the same time, if the sentence imposed, re-
gardless of its type, will not run optimally (in each case
provided for the full achievement of criminal sanctions), it
will also inevitably lead to the loss of any logic of punish-
ment.
To clarify the decision of the three groups of problems
it is advisable to use the “Golden Rule” philosophy that “In
the world there is no absolute truth, there is only relative.”
That’s what we want to emphasize that the aforemen-
tioned ideas may be to some extent partially correct and
appropriate.
So, speaking about the purpose of punishment, to ex-
press their ideas more realistically and accurately, we
have to pull back some of the accepted theories and hy-
potheses, bombastic ‘official’ views. The main purpose of
punishment - it faces the punishment of the offender. All
other objectives are hiding under the umbrella of the main
goals. Of course, in modern conditions of life for the more
optimal organization of further punishment states for pur-
poses such as education, training, prevention of criminal
sanctions, the provision of educational effect on others.
This is, in our opinion, correct. At the same time, we can-
not deny the existence of objective “punish” among other
purposes of punishment.
Speaking about the very serious issue of organizing a
discussion or vice versa liberal punishment, it can be ar-
gued endlessly. The system of penalties must be severe
and mild forms of punishment. Because they are, each in
his place may be needed in the interests of the state or
society. In addition, it is important to note that the system
of penalties must constantly be reformed on the basis of
prevailing realities in the life of society, ideological chang-
es taking place in people’s minds. Society and life does
not stand still, it continues indefinitely. What is now true
and useful, tomorrow it could be wrong, useless, in fact -
harmful.
Finally, the last question is the appointment and execu-
tion of punishment.
Again we return to the “relativity” of the theory. It would
not have been perfect system of penalties, if it is assigned
to the wrong, and executed far from optimal way, it will
remain ineffective. In imposing sentence, the basic princi-
ple should be the principle of differentiation. Here we are
talking about the possibility of assigning different punish-
ments for the perpetrators of the same crimes. Compli-
ance with this principle in sentencing is the only guarantee
of a fair punishment. Execution of the punishment - this is
a very delicate and controversial issue. For work with a
person bearing a danger to society, caused the harm to
another person, society or the state, to approach it from
the standpoint of achieving the purposes of punishment,
always recognized fully the complex activities. Its subtlety
is determined precisely by this. During the execution of
penalties the principle of differentiation should be a priori-
ty. The system of differentiated and individualized execu-
tion of punishment, taking into account the type and cate-
gory of the crime, its causes, the identity of the offender
and other circumstances, can be very effective. Most
countries of the world have long taken advantages of this
system for many years with great success using this
method. Full achievement of the objectives of punishment
in the process of its implementation is also considered one
of the most important tasks. In other words, a person who
commits a crime should primarily be punished for what he
did, at the same time to pass the stage of re-education.
The mechanism of execution of punishments should be
such that both can be achieved mutually agreed.
For crime prevention state can use a lot of techniques
and measures. Firstly, all the questions try to dispose the
economic side of the problem. How stable is the economic
situation in the country, so strong is the social situation in
the society. But, this is not a solution to the problem. Be-
cause, even if the prosperous economic situation cannot
do away with the crime. For, in such circumstances re-
ceive their different development, new forms of crime.
Thus, in many industrialized countries (e.g., in the US and
some European countries) is still not possible to put a bar-
rier to corruption offenses. As they say in some cases, the
idea is to do away with the crime - no more than a utopia.
This idea, in a certain part makes sense. The economic
aspect - this is not a complete solution. We want to say
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
2016
№
3
♦
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
60
that regardless of the conditions of life in society (econom-
ic development or lack of development), the punishment
for the state will always be important.
Therefore, it is in such a situation, the state with the
help of a punitive policy fights crime. But we should not
forget that the penalty (regardless of its level of severity or
mildness) can have a definite impact on the crime rate.
Even the pressure of serious penalties is not able to pro-
vide complete crime prevention.
Social punishment function serves to ensure the pros-
perity of society. In modern conditions of life, the focus is
given to enhance the educational value of punishment. As
for any problem leading criterion is the consciousness of
man. Without changing the attitude of people towards a
particular problem to solve it is impossible. An educational
aspect of the penalties is to encourage the person who
committed the crime feelings of regret in his act, achieve-
ment of obstruction and prevent such incidents in the fu-
ture.
In conclusion, we note that to achieve these objectives
in the formation of the criminal law and the penal policy of
the state, as well as the penal system, part of its base, in
the first place, should take into account existing in a par-
ticular society, socio-economic, political, ethno-cultural,
religious, spiritual, moral circumstances, as well as the
development of statehood and public relations, the need
for specific penalties in the social and criminological as-
pects of modern development trends of public opinion, the
level of awareness and compliance with the law, the legal
status of culture, scientific and theoretical achievements
and recommendations, international experience and the
generally recognized international legal standards, the real
social and regulatory capabilities of punishment.
At the same time, the criminal policy (repressive poli-
cies), designed to meet all of these circumstances, and
successfully carried out in life, however, in need of con-
stant reform. At the same time, should focus on its adapta-
tion to modern requirements, improvement of legislation,
the development of the sociology of criminal law. Only the
possibility of achieving the goals can be found under such
conditions.
Х
.
Абзалова
старший
преподаватель
кафедры
Уголовно
право
и
криминология
ТГЮУ
,
к
.
ю
.
н
.
УГОЛОВНО
-
ПРАВОВАЯ
,
КРИМИНОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ
И
ВИКТИМОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ
ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА
УМЫШЛЕННОГО
УБИЙСТВА
Аннотация
:
Ушбу
мақолада
қасддан
одам
ўлди
-
ришнинг
жиноят
-
ҳуқуқий
таҳлили
моҳияти
ёритилган
,
ушюу
жиноятнинг
криминологик
ва
виктимологик
тав
-
сифи
таҳлил
қилинган
.
Калит
сўзлар
:
қасддан
одам
ўлдириш
,
сабаб
ва
шартлар
,
жиноят
-
ҳуқуқий
таҳлил
,
жабрланувчи
.
Аннотация
:
В
данной
статье
были
раскрыты
сущ
-
ность
уголовно
-
правового
анализа
умышленного
убий
-
ства
,
проанализированы
криминологическая
и
викти
-
мологическая
характеристика
данного
преступления
.
Ключевые
слова
:
умышленное
убийство
,
причины
и
условия
,
уголовно
-
правовой
анализ
,
потерпевший
.
Annotation:
In this article are disclosed essence of
the criminal and legal analysis of premeditated murder,
are analysed the criminological and victimological charac-
teristic of this crime.
Key words:
premeditated murder, reasons and condi-
tions, criminal-legal analysis, victim.
Забота
о
человеке
,
его
личных
правах
и
достоин
-
ствах
является
важной
задачей
любого
государства
.
Конституция
Республики
Узбекистан
в
своих
нормах
провозглашает
,
гарантирует
и
защищает
законные
права
и
интересы
личности
,
независимо
от
каких
-
либо
обстоятельств
.
Статья
24
Конституции
закрепляет
,
что
«
право
на
жизнь
есть
неотъемлемое
право
каждого
человека
и
посягательство
на
нее
является
тягчайшим
преступлением
» [1].
Данная
норма
Конституции
нашла
свое
отражение
и
в
уголовном
законодательства
.
Статья
2
УК
Респуб
-
лики
Узбекистан
выделяет
в
качестве
своей
основной
задачей
защиту
от
преступных
посягательств
лично
-
сти
,
ее
прав
и
свобод
.
В
связи
с
этим
УК
предусматри
-
вает
ряд
статьей
,
предусматривающих
ответствен
-
ность
за
противоправное
лишение
жизни
другого
че
-
ловека
–
статьи
97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102
УК
.
При
этом
УК
предусматривает
три
вида
убийств
:
простое
(
часть
1
статьи
97),
квалифицированное
,
т
.
е
.
при
отягчающих
обстоятельствах
(
часть
2
статьи
97),
и
привилегиро
-
ванное
,
т
.
е
.
при
смягчающих
обстоятельствах
(
ст
.
ст
.
98 - 101).
При
этом
особое
теоретическое
и
практиче
-
ское
значение
имеет
изучение
простого
умышленного
убийства
.
Важность
уголовно
-
правовой
характеристики
умышленного
убийства
характеризуется
тем
,
что
пер
-
вая
статья
Особенной
части
УК
Республики
Узбеки
-
стан
начинается
именно
со
статьи
97,
предусматрива
-
ющей
ответственность
за
рассматриваемое
преступ
-
ление
,
которая
является
основным
составов
преступ
-
ления
в
отношении
других
видов
преступлений
,
преду
-
сматривающих
противоправное
лишение
жизни
друго
-
го
человека
.
Объектом
умышленного
убийства
явля
-
ются
общественные
отношения
,
которые
складывают
-
ся
по
поводу
реализации
человеком
естественного
,
подтвержденного
международными
и
конституцион
-
ными
актами
права
на
жизнь
,
и
обеспечивающие
без
-
опасность
жизни
.
Жизнь
как
объект
преступления
не
