Rare case. Legislators have decided to correct their, to put it mildly, little-considered step. In December 2015, the Law "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the improvement of the order of admission of the term of pre-trial detention in time for punishment". This rule, better known as the "Savchenko Law" (named after one of the initiators that was at that time in the Russian prison), provided for new rules, according to which, if the court calculates punishment, one day of pre-trial detention is counted for the convicted person for two days of imprisonment.
As explained by the authors of the draft, the adoption of the law should ensure "social justice", stop the vicious practice of prolonged detention of persons under investigation behind bars, and simply help relieve the investigative isolators. The argument "for" was initially quite controversial, given that the theory is one, but in practice everything looks a bit different.
To begin with, the simplest, most effective and legitimate way to "unload insulators" is to carry out the investigation in a qualitative and prompt manner, and then, without delays, review the case in court. Of course, it is not easy to do this, because we need professional law enforcers and judges. But on the other hand, the adoption of the law does not add to the professionalism of either one or the other, and does not help to relieve the detention center.
A measure of restraint in the form of detention is chosen by the court, and no law of Savchenko influences it. Moreover, after the liberalization of the Criminal Code, detention during the investigation was mainly applied to persons who committed serious and especially serious crimes related to physical violence.
As a result, to the defendant, who probably knew that his guilt would be proved, it was elementary advantageous to maximally delay the investigation. After all, during the period of being under investigation in the SIZO he is counted twice as long.
It turned out that the people who were behind the bars the same time interval (only one in the SIZO, and others in the colony), used different calculation of the period of stay in captivity. Moreover, it turns out that the very same "sidelitsy" who were closed in jail for serious crimes got the upper hand!.
In practice, the adopted law led to yet another negative result. He provoked a kind of "technical amnesty". In principle, the state periodically "unloads" places of deprivation of liberty by accepting amnesty or releasing certain categories of persons on parole. But in this case, Savchenko's law, unlike amnesty or UDO, introduced a certain mathematical formal procedure that does not take into account the identity of the convict and the severity of the deed.
When criminal statistics became replenished with daily examples of new robberies, robberies and murders committed by gentlemen of fortune, issued by the newly adopted law, it became obvious that with it - the law - "a little" hurried up. The Ministry of Internal Affairs sounded the alarm, and the deputies were still wondering what to do.
As a result, the legislators returned with 227 votes to the previous norm "day after day". And since the laws do not have retroactive force (including the mentioned one), those who managed to use the temporary "bonuses" will still be satisfied.
And the last.
Correct mistakes, especially in the legal field of course necessary. But it is desirable that the legislative norms themselves are not purely populist in nature and not be adopted hastily by people's representatives, under the influence of the conjuncture. Otherwise, the effect of them will be only negative.
Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.
Join the group "Browser Blogs" on Facebook, stay tuned!.