General and specific crime prevention: a teleological context

Konstantin Korsakov

VAK Russia 5.1.4 UDC 343.85

2 more Collapse

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CRIME PREVENTION: A TELEOLOGICAL CONTEXT General and specific crime prevention: a teleological context

АА Аа

Published in Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior · Volume 6, Issue 3 · Pages 526–537 · Rubric: Criminological research on deviant behavior

Received: 06.06.2026 Accepted: 08.08.2026 Published: 26.10.2026

Authors

Konstantin Korsakov

ORCID

Konstantin Korsakov

Institut filosofii i prava Ural'skogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk Senior Research Fellow · Department of Law · Russian Federation · Екатеринбург

ORCID

ABSTRACT

Introduction. This paper examines issues relating to general and specific crime prevention – which are of current relevance to criminology and criminal law doctrine – in the context of their legislative objectives. The article highlights the shortcomings in the existing legislative wording of the objectives of general and specific deterrence and proposes directions and ways to address them. It identifies the main means of achieving general and specific deterrence of criminal behavior, as well as the criteria for their effectiveness, in prison practice and in the process of legislative criminalisation. Controversial issues concerning the relationship between general and specific prevention, as well as so-called ‘legal’ rehabilitation as objectives of criminal punishment, are examined. Research methods. The methodological framework of the study comprised a combination of general scientific methods (generalisation, induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis) and discipline-specific methods (historical-legal and documentary analysis – analysis of the texts of statutory instruments, etc.). Results. The findings of this study are of theoretical significance and are also reflected in specific legislative proposals and recommendations. It is proposed to amend the content of Part 2 of Article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: to remove the word ‘new’ from it and to reword the section relating to general and specific prevention as follows: “…the prevention of offences being committed by convicted persons and other individuals”. Furthermore, in view of the identified contradiction, a proposal has been put forward to remove the word ‘applies’ from the wording of Part 2 of Article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and to reformulate the legal provision in that part of the article using the words “the aims of punishment are…”. Conclusion. Based on the findings of this study, the author has concluded that, within a unified, multi-stage process of achieving the objectives of criminal punishment, general and specific deterrence must complement one another and be combined on an equal footing and through compromise. Efforts to simultaneously achieve these fundamental objectives of punishment form part of the overall system of crime prevention – a system of criminal law-based prevention of the most socially dangerous form of social deviance: criminal behavior.

KEYWORDS

crime prevention, fight against crime, criminal punishment, aims of punishment, correctional effect on offenders

Text

Text (PDF)

Read Download

1. Andenes, I. (1979). Nakazanie i preduprezhdenie prestuplenii (V. M. Kogan, per.; B. S. Nikiforov, red.). Progress.

2. Kondratiuk, L. V. (2001). Antropologiia prestupleniia (mikrokriminologiia). NORMA.

3. Manns, G. Iu. (1926). Obshchee i spetsial'noe preduprezhdenie v ugolovnom prave. Vlast' truda.

4. Miniazeva, T. F., & Dobriakov, D. A. (2017). Nakazanie – ne panatseia ot prestupnosti. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, (425), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/425/30

5. Poznyshev, S. V. (1907). Osnovnye nachala nauki ugolovnogo prava. Vypusk pervyi. Universitetskaia tipografiia.

6. Poznyshev, S. V. (1912). Osnovnye nachala nauki ugolovnogo prava. Obshchaia chast' ugolovnogo prava. A. A. Kartsev.

7. Santashov, A. L. (2015). O neobkhodimosti unifikatsii tselei nakazaniia v ugolovnom i ugolovno-ispolnitel'nom zakonodatel'stve. Vestnik instituta: prestuplenie, nakazanie, ispravlenie, (4), 51–56.

8. Tagiev, M. N. (1989). Ugolovnoe nakazanie v sisteme mer vozdeistviia na prestupnost'. IFiP AN AzSSR.

9. Tolstik, V. A. (2017). K voprosu o protivorechivosti tselei i printsipov iuridicheskoi otvetstvennosti (nakazaniia). Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta imeni N.I. Lobachevskogo, (6), 143–147.

10. Trakhterov, V. S. (1955). O zadachakh nakazaniia po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. V Uchenye zapiski: sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Vypusk 6 (s. 3–11). Khar'kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet im. A.M. Gor'kogo.

11. Urazbaev, R. Sh. (2017). O dostizhimosti i prioritetnosti tselei nakazaniia. Vestnik ekonomiki, prava i sotsiologii, (4), 218–225.

12. Tsvetinovich, A. L. (1989). Dopolnitel'nye nakazaniia: Funktsii, sistema, vidy. Saratovskii universitet.

13. Chel'tsov-Bebutov, M. A. (1926). Spetsial'noe i obshchee preduprezhdenie. Vestnik sovetskoi iustitsii, (1), 4–9.

14. Chernov, A. D. (2001). Aktual'nye problemy ugolovnogo nakazaniia [Dissertatsiia doktora yuridicheskikh nauk].

15. Shmarov, I. V. (1968). Kriterii i pokazateli effektivnosti nakazanii. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, (6), 57–64.

16. Shmarov, I. V. (1969). Effektivnost' obshchepredupreditel'nogo vozdeistviia nakazaniia. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, (11), 98–104.

17. Yuzhanin, V. E. (2013). Predupreditel'nye vozmozhnosti nakazaniia. Chelovek: prestuplenie i nakazanie, (3), 49–53.

18. Yakovlev, A. M. (1985). Teoriia kriminologii i sotsial'naia praktika. Nauka

19. Marx, K. (1859, September 16). From population, crime and pauperism. New-York Daily Tribune. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/09/16.htm