Those on probation will have to prove in a new way that they have reformed.

Singing and dancing is no longer enough

The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs asked to relieve local police officers of the obligation to write positive characteristics for those sentenced to a suspended sentence. This was discussed during the discussion of the draft resolution of the plenum of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided to spell out in detail in which cases Themis can decide to revoke a suspended sentence and expunge a person’s criminal record. Among other things, until now the reason could have been a positive description of the local police commissioner in the area of ​​residence of the convicted person. A representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs confirmed that the police are obliged to participate in monitoring the behavior of convicts who have been given a non-custodial sentence or a suspended sentence. But the issuance of characteristics by local police commissioners is not provided for. That is why the district police don’t even really know how to draw them up. And most importantly, such a characteristic may not always be objective. The Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee, in principle, insist that a conditionally convicted person must prove correction by his behavior, which, within the meaning of the criminal law, must have an impeccable and, as a rule, active positive character. Two departments proposed to consider those probationers who are involved in volunteering, charity or patriotic activities as reformed.

Lawyers reasonably noted that it would be wrong to demand heroism from convicts, as well as to oblige them to participate in various competitions and other activities (“a person must sing and dance to prove his correction?” the representative of the Supreme Court was surprised). Perhaps the absence of facts of criminal and administrative liability, information about compensation for harm caused by a crime, or certain other circumstances (raising a child, caring for a disabled person, etc.) is quite enough. However, the Investigative Committee promised to compile a list of “good deeds” that could become a clear reason for release.