Procedure for Assessing the Law-Abiding Behaviour of a Convict

One of the key moments in the process of serving a sentence is the mechanism (procedure) for assessing a convict’s behaviour, as the convict’s future ‘fate’ and prospects depend heavily upon it. At the same time, the question of how existing criteria for such an assessment correspond to modern realities and how fully they reflect the actual state of a convict’s rehabilitation and their readiness for ‘resocialisation’ has, until now, been almost entirely unaddressed.
This is precisely why we consider it important to examine the specified mechanism in greater detail, while providing our own comments regarding the existing criteria.
The purpose of this article is to attempt to draw attention to this problem and to elicit various opinions from specialists on ways to resolve it.
Thus:
Existing criteria for behaviour assessment
These are practically identical for all countries of the former USSR.
Taking Ukraine as an example.
Criteria for assessing the behaviour of convicts are primarily applied when resolving the following issues (such criteria also hold a certain significance when deciding on issues of release due to illness, amnesty, pardon, the establishment of administrative supervision, etc.):
- changing the conditions of detention by transferring to a different type of penal institution (Articles 100, 101 of the Penal Enforcement Code of Ukraine – hereinafter the PEC of Ukraine);
- substituting the unserved portion of a sentence with a more lenient punishment (Article 82 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – hereinafter the CC of Ukraine);
- parole from serving a sentence (Article 81 of the CC of Ukraine).
Article 100 of the PEC of Ukraine provides for the possibility of transferring convicts who are ‘on the path to rehabilitation’ to other institutions.
In accordance with Article 81 of the CC of Ukraine, parole from serving a sentence may be applied if a convict has proven their rehabilitation through conscientious behaviour and an honest attitude towards work. That is, the sole and sufficient basis for parole (aside from serving the portion of the sentence defined by law) is the achievement of one of the goals of punishment – the rehabilitation of the convict, which is confirmed by their conscientious behaviour and attitude towards work during the period of serving the sentence.
Article 82 of the CC of Ukraine provides that the substitution of the unserved portion of a sentence with a more lenient one may be applied if a convict has ‘embarked on the path to rehabilitation’.
Current legislation does not define concepts such as ‘embarking on the path to rehabilitation’, ‘has embarked on the path to rehabilitation’, ‘has proven rehabilitation’, ‘conscientious behaviour’, or ‘honest attitude towards work’.
Like any other, a criterion such as the degree of a convict’s rehabilitation consists of specific components and characteristic features.
Some aspects of assessing these are indicated in the Methodological Recommendations of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences (hereinafter – the Department) regarding the organisation of work related to ensuring a progressive system of serving sentences in penal institutions. Others have been developed by the science of penal enforcement law.
However, it should be noted that neither the law nor the recommendations explain exactly how to assess a convict’s behaviour in accordance with the existing criteria; they only provide a general idea of the points that are subject to consideration.
For instance, ‘conscientious behaviour’ in academic literature is usually understood as the conscious and undisputed observance by the convict of the regime for serving a sentence and of the obligations established by current normative legal acts on these issues, as well as the fulfilment of the lawful requirements of the administration.
As defined by the Department, conscientious behaviour implies not only the presence of incentives for the convict but also that the convict sets a positive example of behaviour for other convicts. The mere formal fact of a convict lacking unremitted or unexpunged disciplinary penalties cannot be considered conscientious behaviour, since compliance with the requirements of the sentence-serving regime is a mandatory duty of the convict.
The science of penal enforcement law understands an ‘honest attitude towards work’ as the fair and complete fulfilment by the convict of their labour obligations, the improvement of quantitative and qualitative indicators of the work performed, the enhancement of professional qualifications, a frugal attitude towards equipment and tools, strict compliance with safety rules, etc.
The Department recommends taking into account that a conscientious attitude towards work implies the convict’s aspiration to exceed established production quotas or to perform work in an exemplary manner, as well as the compensation of damages caused by the crime, the provision of financial assistance to one’s family, and the payment of alimony. When assessing the attitude towards work, one should also take into account the convict’s performance of unpaid work related to the improvement of the place of sentence service.
Based on this understanding of the main concepts, the Department clarifies: the criterion ‘embarking on the path to rehabilitation’ means that, alongside a positive assessment of the convict’s behaviour (normal course of serving the sentence, absence of unremitted or unexpunged disciplinary penalties, conscientious attitude towards work and study, participation in differentiated programmes of educational influence), the colony administration does not have full confidence in their rehabilitation; therefore, only a transfer to a structural section of the colony with fewer restrictions is possible.
The factual grounds justifying the legal criterion of ‘embarking on the path to rehabilitation’, according to the Methodological Recommendations, consist of: the presence of substantiated materials with the conclusion of the correctional colony administration, the supervisory commission, and other state bodies and public organisations, testifying to: a) the convict’s admission of guilt for the committed crime and remorse for it; no violations of the established order of serving a sentence throughout the year or the early remission of a previously imposed penalty, after which at least six months have passed; refusal of negative ties with the criminal environment and the influence of criminal morality; b) conscientious and honest work, fulfilment of production quotas, and the aspiration to obtain or improve one’s professional and educational level; c) the signing of a written commitment to law-abiding behaviour.
A certain assessment of the convict’s behaviour is also conducted when disciplinary measures are imposed upon them.
When making a decision on the application of Article 100 of the PEC of Ukraine (transfer to a social rehabilitation unit or a minimum-security colony with lighter detention conditions), the Methodological Recommendations advise paying special attention to the following factors: 1) the degree of the convict’s danger, their intentions regarding the further serving of the sentence, and the ability to independently adhere to the requirements of the regime in conditions of absent isolation and limited supervision; 2) the presence of data indicating the possibility or intentions of committing an escape (was wanted during the investigation, deserted from the Armed Forces, etc.); 3) the degree of alcohol, drug, or toxicological dependence; 4) attitude towards work, possession of a professional speciality, and qualifications; 5) the health status and employability of the convict; 6) the convict’s social environment, marital status, and family ties; 7) the distance of the social rehabilitation unit from the convict’s place of residence and the likelihood of this factor influencing their behaviour.
Any peculiarities in the assessment of behaviour for specific categories of convicts concern only minors. Parole or the substitution of the unserved portion of a sentence with a more lenient one is applied to them upon the joint submission of the administration and the children’s affairs service, and their attitude towards studies is also taken into account when assessing behaviour. No other significant peculiarities are provided.
Review Procedure
As the Department indicates, when resolving issues regarding the application to convicts of the norms provided for by Articles 81 and 82 of the CC of Ukraine, the conclusion of the institution’s administration regarding the degree of a convict’s rehabilitation must be based on a comprehensive consideration of data regarding their behaviour and attitude towards work for the entire period spent in the penal institution, rather than only for the time immediately preceding the consideration of these issues.
After the convict gains the formal right to the application of the norms provided for by Articles 81 and 82 of the CC of Ukraine (having served a portion of the sentence and proven a certain degree of rehabilitation), the following materials are prepared: a) a petition-character reference, signed by the head of the social and psychological service department and approved by the deputy head of the colony for social, educational, and psychological work; b) an individual programme of social and educational work; c) a certificate of incentives and penalties; d) a psychological profile; e) a questionnaire with proposals from the first deputy head of the colony, the deputy head of the colony for social, educational, and psychological work, the deputy head of the colony for labour utilisation, the deputy head of the colony for communal and logistics support, the head of the supervision and security department, the head of the operational department, the head of the medical unit, and the head of the department for the control over the execution of court decisions; f) a medical certificate regarding health status, the presence of an unfinished course of treatment for a venereal disease, active form of tuberculosis, a mental disorder, or the results of such treatment, and the presence or absence of alcohol, drug, and toxicological dependence. In the case of considering the possibility of replacing the unserved portion of a term of imprisonment with a restriction of liberty, the certificate must include a conclusion regarding the convict’s ability to stay in a correctional centre and to be employed; g) the convict’s statement with a request for the application of incentive norms provided for by Articles 81 and 82 of the CC of Ukraine, and a written commitment to law-abiding behaviour; h) other documents relevant to an objective resolution of the issue.
When making a decision on these issues, the Department recommends paying special attention to the following factors: 1) the degree of the convict’s danger, their intentions regarding the further serving of the sentence, and the ability to independently adhere to the requirements of the regime in conditions of absent isolation and limited supervision; 2) the presence of data indicating the possibility or intentions of committing an escape (was wanted during the investigation, deserted from the Armed Forces, etc.); 3) the degree of alcohol, drug, or toxicological dependence; 4) attitude towards work, possession of a professional speciality, and qualifications; 5) the health status and employability of the convict; 6) the convict’s social environment, marital status, and family ties.
If there are grounds for the application of parole or the substitution of the unserved portion of a sentence with a more lenient one, the administration of the penal institution, together with the supervisory commission or the children’s affairs service, is obliged to consider within one month the issue regarding the possibility of submitting the convict for parole or for the substitution of the unserved portion of the sentence with a more lenient one, and to send a submission to the court. The submission is considered and resolved by a judge of the district (city) court at the place where the convict is serving the sentence. The court considers such a submission within ten days from the moment of its receipt by the court, without requesting the court file, and with the participation of the prosecutor, a representative of the penal enforcement body (institution), and, as a rule, the convict. When the court considers a joint submission from the penal enforcement body (institution) and the juvenile affairs service, the court notifies them of the time and place for the consideration of this submission. A person may be released early, either fully or partially, from serving an additional punishment as well.
In the event that the court refuses parole or the substitution of the unserved portion of the sentence with a more lenient one, a repeated submission on these issues regarding persons convicted of grave or especially grave crimes to imprisonment for a term of at least five years may be submitted no earlier than one year from the date of the issuance of the refusal order, and regarding those convicted of other crimes and minor convicts – no earlier than six months after.
The court order may be appealed, and therefore its execution is carried out only after the expiry of the seven-day period established in Article 407 of the CPC of Ukraine.
Although it is not provided for by the CPC of Ukraine, allegedly for the purpose of a high-quality consideration by courts of issues in accordance with Article 82 of the CC of Ukraine regarding the replacement of imprisonment with correctional labour, the Appeals Commission of the Department has established that relevant materials may be submitted to the court only upon the availability of a certificate from the organisation, enterprise, or institution where the person is intended to be employed, and regarding the provision of living space to the convict for the period of the execution of this type of punishment (Decisions No. 1 and No. 4 – 2004). At the same time, it is required that the certificate of the possibility of employment must indicate the position and approximate salary. The issue of the employment of convicts when applying Article 82 of the CC of Ukraine is coordinated with the penal enforcement inspection of the territorial administrations of the Department, per the Department’s instruction dated 05.01.2005 No. 5/3-2 (thus, certificates of employment presented by convicts and their relatives are pre-verified).
It is necessary to note that the Department recommends applying parole only to those convicts who have less than three years of imprisonment remaining until the end of their sentence term.
The Department recommends that the study of candidates for transfer to a social rehabilitation unit, the assessment of the degree of rehabilitation, the preparation of materials regarding the possibility of transfer to a unit of this type, and their consideration at a meeting of the relevant colony commission should be carried out in the order determined for the substitution of the unserved portion of a sentence with a more lenient one and for parole from serving a sentence.
After the convict gains the formal right to a transfer to a social rehabilitation unit (having served a portion of the sentence and proven a certain degree of rehabilitation), the following materials are prepared: a) a petition-character reference, signed by the head of the social and psychological service department and approved by the deputy head of the colony for social, educational, and psychological work; b) an individual programme of social and educational work; c) a certificate of incentives and penalties; d) a psychological profile; e) a questionnaire with proposals from the first deputy head of the colony, the deputy head of the colony for social, educational, and psychological work, the deputy head of the colony for labour utilisation, the deputy head of the colony for communal and logistics support, the head of the supervision and security department, the head of the operational department, the head of the medical unit, and the head of the department for the control over the execution of court decisions; f) a medical certificate regarding health status, the presence of an unfinished course of treatment for a venereal disease, active form of tuberculosis, a mental disorder, or the results of such treatment, and the presence or absence of alcohol, drug, and toxicological dependence. The certificate must include a conclusion regarding the convict’s ability to stay in a social rehabilitation unit; g) the convict’s statement with a request for their transfer to a social rehabilitation unit and a written commitment to law-abiding behaviour; h) other documents relevant to an objective resolution of the issue.
The procedure for changing the conditions of detention for convicts within a single correctional colony is established by the Internal Regulations of Penal Institutions and by Decision No. 2 of the Department’s Appeals Commission dated 22.01.2004.
A change in the conditions of detention within a single colony is carried out upon the petition of the head of the social and psychological service department via an order from the colony head, which must be approved by the supervisory commission.
A change in the conditions of detention for convicts by transferring them to correctional colonies of a different security level is carried out by the Department’s Appeals Commission on issues of distribution, assignment, and transfer for the serving of sentences by persons convicted to imprisonment, upon the joint submission of the correctional colony administration and the supervisory commission, coordinated – after consideration at a meeting of the Department’s Regional Commission on issues of distribution, assignment, and transfer for the serving of sentences by persons convicted to imprisonment – with the head of the territorial body of the Department’s administration.
Thus, the procedure for changing a convict’s conditions of detention by transferring them to a correctional colony of a different security level (in contrast to the procedure for changing conditions within one institution) represents a more complex, three-stage process. First, the issue is considered at a meeting of the institution’s commission, which includes the colony head, their deputies, and the heads of the operational department, the supervision and security department, the medical department, the department for control over the execution of court decisions, etc.
In the event that the institution’s commission makes a positive decision regarding the change of detention conditions by transferring convicts to correctional colonies of a different security level, the following materials are sent to the Regional Commission within one week: a) the submission of the institution head, approved by the supervisory commission; b) a certificate from the convict’s personal file, with mandatory indication of socially useful ties; c) a character reference for the convict; d) a certificate of incentives and penalties; e) a medical certificate; f) a statement from the convict who is embarking on the path to rehabilitation; g) a certificate from the registration file in the event that the convict is on preventive registration as being prone to committing offences. Also attached to the materials is a certificate stating whether the convict was wanted before their arrest.
Meetings of the Regional Commission on these issues are held as materials are received, but no less than twice a month. After the Regional Commission makes a positive decision, requests for the issuance of personal warrants for the transfer of the convicts are sent to the Department within 3 working days.
The procedure for transferring convicts who maliciously violate the regime of serving a sentence from an institution of one type to another consists of three stages: 1) consideration of materials at the institution’s commission; 2) consideration of materials at a meeting of the Regional Commission on issues of distribution, assignment, and transfer of persons convicted to imprisonment of the territorial administration of the Department.
In the event that the Regional Commission makes a preliminary positive decision regarding the transfer of convicts who maliciously violate the regime of serving a sentence from medium-security colonies to a cell-type premise of a maximum-security colony for a term of up to 3 years, an extract from the minutes of the Regional Commission meeting and photocopies of the materials received for consideration by the Regional Commission from the institution (a) a reasoned submission of the colony head, approved by the head of the territorial body of the Department’s administration and the supervisory commission; b) a character reference for the convict; c) a certificate of the convict’s incentives and penalties; d) a certificate from the personal file, which must mandatory indicate the convict’s movement, a brief summary of the crime, family ties, and accomplices; e) a certificate of the convict’s health status. If necessary, other materials may be attached (from the colony’s operational and social-psychological services, etc.), which are then sent to the Department’s Office of Security, Supervision, and Control.
The final decision on the transfer of the specified category of convicts and the determination of the term of their sentence service in cell-type premises of a maximum-security colony is taken exclusively at a meeting of the Department’s Appeals Commission.
Article 134 of the PEC of Ukraine defines the procedure for applying disciplinary measures to convicts. When applying penalties, three main principles are followed: a) consideration of the circumstances of the offence, the convict’s personality, and their previous behaviour; b) proportionality of the penalty to the severity and nature of the violation; c) prohibition against imposing multiple penalties for a single violation. Consideration of these principles allows a penalty to be fair and effective in achieving the tasks set before it.
A penalty may be imposed only upon the person who committed the misconduct, and no later than ten days from the day of the discovery of the misconduct, or if an investigation was conducted in connection with the misconduct, then from the day of its completion, but no later than six months from the day the misconduct was committed. The imposed penalty is put into execution immediately, and in exceptional cases – within a period no later than one month from the day of its imposition. If a penalty has not been put into execution within a month from the day of its imposition, then this penalty is not executed.
Penalties in the form of a warning or reprimand, or the appointment to unscheduled duty for cleaning the premises and the colony territory, are imposed orally or in writing; other penalties are imposed only in writing.
A penalty in the form of a disciplinary fine is imposed only for a malicious violation of the established order of serving a sentence. The amount of the fine is transferred to state revenue.
The PEC of Ukraine establishes rather strict conditions of detention for convicts placed in a disciplinary isolation unit, a punishment cell, or a cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell).
For convicts placed in a disciplinary isolation unit or punishment cell, or transferred to a cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell), all disciplinary measures may be applied, with the exception of re-placement in a disciplinary isolation unit or punishment cell, or re-transfer to a cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell). During their stay in a disciplinary isolation unit, punishment cell, or cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell), convicts are prohibited from having visits, purchasing food and essential items, receiving parcels (transfers) and small packages, and using board games.
In a disciplinary isolation unit, punishment cell, or cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell), convicts are provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. Bedding is issued only for the time of sleep, and outerwear only for the time of leaving the premises. The detention of convicts in a punishment cell is solitary. Convicts held in a disciplinary isolation unit, punishment cell, or cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell) are granted a daily walk lasting one hour. For persons with tuberculosis, the duration of the daily walk is 2 hours. Parcels (transfers) and small packages are handed to the convict after the completion of their stay in the disciplinary isolation unit, punishment cell, or cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell). Convicts held in a disciplinary isolation unit with permission to work, or in a cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell), work separately from other convicts.
Early release from a disciplinary isolation unit, punishment cell, or cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell) as a form of incentive is not permitted and is possible only in the event of circumstances arising that prevent the further detention of the convict in these premises.
The procedure for applying disciplinary measures to convicts, including the placement of convicts held in correctional colonies into a disciplinary isolation unit or punishment cell, or the transfer of a convict to a cell-type premise (solitary confinement cell), is an extreme measure of disciplinary response and is determined in the relevant Methodological Recommendations of the Department.
According to this regulatory act, an investigation is organised for every instance of a convict violating the requirements and conditions of serving a sentence, which must cover and reflect the circumstances of the violation, the severity and nature of the misconduct, the convict’s behaviour prior to the misconduct, the number and nature of previously imposed penalties, the convict’s explanations regarding the substance of the misconduct, etc.
Documents certifying the fact of a violation of the conditions of serving a sentence include: a report drawn up by colony staff; a report or memorandum from a colony employee; explanations of other persons who witnessed the violation; and other materials confirming the violation of the conditions of serving a sentence (search report, destruction of property, etc.). A document confirming a violation of the conditions of serving a sentence must contain information about the person who committed the violation (surname, first name, and patronymic, year of birth of the convict, information on criminal record, the number of the social and psychological service department in which the person is held, the time, place of the offence, and its detailed description). The document must be signed by the institution employee with a legible signature. A written explanation is taken from the convict who committed the violation, and in the case of refusal to provide one, a corresponding act is drawn up, signed by at least three employees, including the person who discovered the violation.
The above-mentioned documents are transmitted by the person who compiled them to the duty assistant to the head of the institution, who registers them on the same day in the logbook of reports on violations of the established order of serving a sentence, as well as complaints, statements, and other notifications of offences, and, if grounds exist, also in the ledger of information on crimes and incidents. The duty assistant to the head of the institution transfers the registered material for consideration to the head of the institution, who tasks the head of the social and psychological service department or another official with conducting further collection of all necessary materials confirming the violation of the established order of serving a sentence. The head of the social and psychological service department, upon receiving the materials regarding a violation, studies them, revises them if necessary, and also conducts an interview with the convict.
To make a decision on applying a penalty to a convict, the head of the social and psychological service department ensures the additional collection of the following documents: a) a report from the employee who discovered the violation; b) a written explanation from the convict or an act of refusal to provide an explanation; c) explanations of witnesses (eyewitnesses) to the violation; d) a report from the head of the social and psychological service department with proposals regarding the response measure for the violation; e) verification certificates (search reports, destruction of property, etc.); f) a medical examination report in the case of alcohol intoxication or a stupefied state (must be signed only by the doctor to whom this duty has been assigned by the head of the institution); g) a medical examination report regarding the severity of bodily injuries; h) a medical certificate regarding the convict’s health status and the possibility of detention in a disciplinary premise; i) in the case of a transfer to a cell-type premise – a character reference and an individual programme of social and psychological work with the convict.
The basis for the admission and detention of convicts in disciplinary isolation units, punishment cells, and cell-type premises (solitary confinement cells) is a reasoned order from the head of the institution or the person acting in their capacity, specifying the term of detention after verifying the convicts’ explanations regarding the substance of the committed offences and obtaining a medical report on the possibility of detention in these premises according to health status. The order is announced to the convict for their signature.
A convict may appeal against a penalty imposed upon them, however, the filing of a complaint does not halt the execution of the penalty. For this, the colony administration, upon imposing a penalty, provides the convict with the opportunity in the established manner (by letter, by phone, etc.) to notify their close relatives, a lawyer, or other legal specialists who, by law, have the right to provide legal assistance personally or on behalf of a legal entity.
An official who has imposed a penalty, if there are grounds for doing so, may cancel it or replace it with another, more lenient penalty. A higher-ranking official may cancel a penalty only in the event that the official who imposed the penalty exceeded their authority or the penalty was imposed by them in the absence of a violation on the part of the convict.
Commentary on existing criteria
It should be noted once again that at present there are no clear instructions on exactly how to assess the specified criteria. Therefore, in practice, a lack of uniformity in this activity is observed. Usually, the assessment is reduced to a simple statement of fact. In more detail regarding the criteria:
1) the convict’s admission of guilt for the committed crime and remorse for it – usually indicated according to the data of the sentence. If at the moment of conviction the person did not repent – this is considered a negative factor. At the same time, it is not taken into account that, given the state of our justice system, not all sentences are passed on the basis of the law. And facts are not excluded where a person is convicted of a crime they did not commit. And is it possible in such cases to consider an admission of guilt as a positive moment? It seems not. Furthermore, the majority of convicts express remorse for the purpose of receiving an additional mitigating circumstance for their liability, and the sincerity of such remorse is in no way verified.
2) no violations of the established order of serving a sentence throughout the year or the early remission of a previously imposed penalty, after which at least six months have passed. In my view, this is a sufficiently formal criterion. It is by no means always the case that the absence of penalties testifies to a positive change in a person’s behaviour. It may be simple conformity or a manifestation of a ‘weak’ character (the convict has not asserted themselves in any way at all).
3) refusal of negative ties with the criminal environment and the influence of criminal morality. An absolutely meaningless criterion. And how can one, while in a colony, confirm such a refusal? Usually, a statement is written which, in essence, requires nothing from the convict and is composed in an exclusively formal manner.
4) the signing of a written commitment to law-abiding behaviour. See the commentary on the previous criterion.
5) conscientious and honest work, fulfilment of production quotas, and the aspiration to obtain or improve one’s professional and educational level, possession of a professional speciality, and qualifications. This may carry weight in the event that conditions have been created in the colony for improving or obtaining a speciality or qualification. If there are no conditions – what can be taken into account? What was the case before conviction? Regarding production quotas – this is also a highly contentious point.
6) degree of the convict’s danger – usually assessed exclusively by the severity of the committed crime and therefore, in my view, this criterion is exclusively formal. Persons convicted of grave or especially grave crimes are not always more dangerous than persons who have committed, for example, crimes of medium severity. The degree of social danger is a complex criterion which should be established on the basis of a totality of data regarding the personality, the committed act (even including its motives), behaviour, and other factors. But in practice, this is not done. Therefore, the degree of social danger is currently a formality.
7) their intentions regarding the further serving of the sentence, and the ability to independently adhere to the requirements of the regime in conditions of absent isolation and limited supervision. This is ascertained in the course of an interview immediately before the resolution of the issue, and, naturally, all convicts who are planned to be positively presented to the commission have exclusively positive plans for the future.
8) the presence of data indicating the possibility or intentions of committing an escape (was wanted during the investigation, deserted from the Armed Forces, etc.). Formally, this may indicate the possibility of an escape in the future. A contentious criterion which, however, holds significant weight when resolving the issue of transferring to a colony of a lower security level or a social rehabilitation unit. The contentiousness lies in the fact that, again, this criterion is assessed formally. For example, the grounds for being wanted are not taken into account. And a wanted notice is issued not only when the convict is hiding from the investigation. It may also be issued if the address is unknown, or if the case ‘needs to be suspended’, etc. However, for the administration, the presence or absence of a ‘wanted’ mark is what matters.
9) the degree of alcohol, drug, or toxicological dependence. An unclear criterion. Proceeding from its interpretation, one can conclude that a convict who has a slight, for example, alcohol dependence, will be able to return to a normal life upon release. It seems that here it is necessary to take into account how the convict has fought this dependence, whether they have undergone voluntary treatment, etc. Medical professionals should provide a conclusion on whether a dependence exists or does not.
10) health status and employability of the convict – the most contentious criterion, in my view. It is unclear whether poor health is an additional ground for applying, for example, parole, or if, on the contrary, such persons should not be ‘released into freedom’? Usually, a medical certificate stating the health status is attached to the materials. There is no talk of any special consideration of the health status.
11) the convict’s social environment, marital status, and family ties. Undoubtedly, these circumstances must be taken into account, since the presence, for example, of a family will facilitate resocialisation. But only in the event that the family has not severed relations. That is, it is necessary to assess them comprehensively, but in our practice, as a rule, they only state the fact. The absence, for example, of relatives cannot be considered an absolute negative, serving as a ground for refusal of release, but should serve as a premise for the application of additional assistance measures.
12) the distance of the social rehabilitation unit from the convict’s place of residence and the likelihood of this factor influencing their behaviour. This criterion is currently not taken into account in the majority of regions.
Thus, the existing practice of assessing law-abiding behaviour requires being brought into compliance with the realities of today’s life. At the same time, it is necessary to note that the assessment of law-abiding behaviour by the colony administration and by representatives of public organisations pursues different goals: for the public, the main goal is the monitoring of compliance with the rights of convicts; for the higher bodies of the State Penal Enforcement Service, it is the lawfulness of the activity, although formal compliance with the provisions of orders does not yet guarantee compliance with rights. Therefore, this assessment should be based on different criteria.