Proportionality of punishment as principle of criminal law and problems of its practical application in Republic of Kazakhstan

2026

Full text Open access: Hybrid Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.46914/2959-4197-2026-1-2-258-267
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The article examines principle of proportionality of punishment as key element of criminal law and mechanism for limiting state repression in Republic of Kazakhstan. Theoretical approaches to understanding proportionality are considered, including retributive, functional and operational aspects, as well as their influence on formation of modern criminal policy. Special attention is paid to analysis of normative foundations of implementation of principle of proportionality through general principles of sentencing, judicial practice and explanations of highest judicial bodies. Main problems of law enforcement are identified, including template nature of judicial reasoning, inconsistency in sentencing, difficulties in application of norms on more lenient punishment, as well as risks of disproportionality in cases of concurrence of offenses. Influence of stage of execution of punishment, including parole and probation, on actual severity of criminal impact is separately analyzed. Necessity of improving mechanisms for ensuring proportionality through standardization of judicial practice, development of alternatives to imprisonment and strengthening institutional guarantees of fairness of punishment is substantiated. Results of study can be used in improvement of criminal legislation and judicial practice. Practical significance of work lies in formulation of recommendations aimed at increasing effectiveness and predictability of sentencing.