Development of the Institution of life imprisonment in the Republic of Belarus: criminological and penal aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the issues related to the execution and serving of a life sentence, using the example of the Republic of Belarus. The criminological characteristics of convicts’ personality are given, and separate proposals are made to optimize the correctional process. The authors note that the practice of punishment execution in the Republic of Belarus is generally similar to many foreign countries. Taking into account the questionnaire compiled by the authors, the characteristics of socio-demographic, moral-psychological, criminal-legal and social-role properties of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment were determined. Thus, the age of convicted persons is from 26 to 58 years. The largest number of people is of working age. Convicts, as a rule, have a low educational level. Most of the respondents are unmarried or divorced. Most convicts do not have children. The majority of them maintain socially useful relationships with relatives. The convicts have a positive attitude to matters of faith. A quarter of them did not work anywhere before the sentencing. Most of the convicts do not have chronic diseases. At the same time, 7.4% of respondents identified themselves as having mental behavioral disorders. For a significant part of the respondents, the served sentence is the first criminal record. The psychological attitude of prisoners to the committed crimes shows that in most cases they repent of what they did and blame only themselves for what happened. A large number of convicts draw attention to themselves, because they put the lack of perspective in the foreground. Taking into account the criminological characteristics, it is concluded that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is an atypical person, in respect of whom it is advisable to apply, along with established forms and methods of correctional influence, a special technique focused on overcoming a specific psychological mood and aimed at achieving the goals of criminal responsibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".