COMPLIANCE OF PUNISHMENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
Keywords:
definition of punishment, he principle of humanism, constitutional rights and freedoms of convicts, aggravating circumstances, the constitution as the basis of penal legislation, doctrinal judgments about the personality of convicts, the concept of toughening punishmentAbstract
Punishment, being one of the main institutions of criminal law, carries the duties of general warning and special warning, thereby protecting broad social relations. These rights take their origin from the supreme legal act, the constitution and are then sanctioned and protected within the framework of the laws of that area. From this point of view, the purpose of determining the
punishment is to prevent and correct violations of norms by individuals, as well as to prevent crimes that may be committed in the future. In this sense, there are different approaches in determining punishment according to human character and personality. Some scholars defend the concept of aggravating the punishment, while other scholars, based on the principle of maximum adaptation of the punishment to the principle of humanism, stipulate the possibility of rehabilitation after release
from the penal institution and want to build trust in the law and the inner respect of the person based on the criterion of compassion. This includes a more lenient approach to punishment. Thus, it is important to determine the objective punishment for the protection of the basic constitutional rights and freedoms of a person, and for the implementation of the legal guarantees specified in Chapter 2 of the Constitution both before and during the trial. As well as after the person has served his sentence
and eliminated the conviction. In a word, the punishment should not violate the constitutional legal status of the person, it should be in accordance with the principle of humanism and it should form confidence in basic rights.
