Conclusion

The results of the research, that we have done, lead to the following conclusions on the solving of the analyzed problem:

1) Within the Soviet period, the priority among the correctional facilities was given to the correctional working settlements, not prisons, which were traditional correctional facilities for hundreds of years within the penitentiary system of Russia, conditioned by the public use of the labor of the convicts. Thus, the modern criminal executive legislation of the Russian Federation denies the working aspect and there appears the necessity to reform and re-build the whole system of correctional facilities and the restoration of prisons instead of the correctional settlements.

2) According to the acting criminal legislation (The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996), the deprivation of freedom is not a specific name, but a generic term to such criminal penalties as a freedom deprivation to a definite term, life imprisonment and arrest. They could be brought to the peer group because all of them possess the same feature, which is «isolation of the convict from the society”.

3) The essence of the arrest corresponds to the essence of the imprisonment, that is why the arrest as a type of the criminal penalty should cease to exist not only in practice (because of the absence of detention home to execute arrest), but also formally, excluding arrest from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

4) Life imprisonment and freedom deprivation for a definite term differ from each other only by the quantitative index, thus representing varieties of freedom deprivation as a generic term, that is why they are more expedient to be analyzed as a unified type of the criminal penalty – term or termless imprisonment.

5) In order to define the contents of freedom deprivation, it is necessary to apply the method of systematic studying of this type of penalty, pointing out the following elements: object, objective side, subject, subjective side, where the object of the penalty defines its contents. The object of the penalty is not a person itself, but rights and freedoms, belonging to it, provided by the law and secured by the State.

6) The category of “freedom deprivation” as a legislative term should be replaced by that of “imprisonment”, because criminal penalties, connected with freedom deprivation, do not deprive the right for freedom, secured by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but only temporarily limit its maintenance, thus the moral aspect of freedom does not suffer the penalty.

7) Taking into account the essence and contents, the author proposes a legislative definition of imprisonment, “Imprisonment consists in the isolation of the convict from the society, by which s/he suffers the limitations in the freedom of migration, choosing the place of habitation and working, right to elect and be elected, right to unite, freedom of meetings, right to participate in State governing and to equitable access to the State service, right to participate in ministering justice, by placing him/her to the prison of common, medium or particular treatment regime or to the correctional medical facility for a term or termless”.

8) Within the perspective of the development of the institution of freedom deprivation it should be regarded as a sub-notion of the penalty, which could be explicated as a theoretical model of penalties: imprisonment for a term or termless and maintenance within the correctional educatory facility.

9) The proposed theoretical model of such substantive criminal penalty, as imprisonment, requires staged replacement of conditions of maintenance in prison, dependent on the convict’s conduct and terms and terms of practical executing of the penalty:

1) isolated (twenty-four-hour);

2) small groups with nightly maintenance in individual cells;

3) the concluding stage of imprisonment includes the maintenance of the convicts in a correctional facility of a semi-open type.

10) Correctional facilities could exist in the future along with prisons, but not as a dominant institution to execute freedom deprivation, but as a correctional institution, meant for maintenance the concluding stage of imprisonment.

11) The most optimal seems to be to keep the maintenance in the correctional settlement as an independent type of penalty, not connected with freedom deprivation. Thus, the word “settlement”, translated from Latin, ad litteram means “residence”, that is why this type of penalty should be called “deportation”, and the correctional facilities, meant for this, should be called “settlements, i.e. facilities of the accessible type”.

12) Deportation to settlement should be regarded as an independent type of penalty. Thus, the unserved term of imprisonment should not be replaced to a more lenient type of punishment as a deportation to settlement in order to keep the isolated maintenance of one category of the convicts from another. In order to be prepared for release, the convicts are to be replaced to a correctional facility of a semi-open type to execute the concluding stage of imprisonment.

13) Correctional facilities of accessible and of semi-open type should be meant to execute two different and independent types of penalty:

– correctional facilities of an accessible type (settlements) – to execute the criminal penalty in the form of deportation to settlement;

– correctional facilities of a semi-open type (correctional colonies) – to execute the concluding stage of imprisonment.

14) In the perspective of the development of an institution of freedom deprivation as a linear notion of penalty, along with imprisonment for a term and termless, the authors have elaborated and offer the theoretical model of an independent type of the criminal penalty – maintenance of the juvenile convicts in a correctional educational center.