The dissertation provides a theoretical generalization and proposes a new solution to the scientific problem, which is to improve the theoretical provisions of criminal law in terms of sentencing for a set of sentences and the development of scientifically sound proposals and recommendations to improve legislation in this area and practice.
It was established that the most common reasons for committing a new criminal offense, after sentencing for the previous one, are the lack of means of subsistence, work, poor motivation to work, low level of training, poverty, loss of family and other ties and psychological unpreparedness for independent solution of their problems, including due to insufficient level of social and psychological training; these circumstances are not properly taken into account by the courts and judicial discretion is widely used in sentencing such persons, based on the essentially opposite conclusions of the court of cassation on the characteristics of convicts, their offenses and the possibility of applying to such convicts Art. 69, 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
It is proposed to significantly limit judicial discretion in terms of strict application by the court of cassation of criminal law and to determine the minimum limit of unserved part of the sentence under the previous sentence, which is subject to mandatory punishment with a new sentence of 10%, excluding the possibility of mitigating such convicted punishment under Art. 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Scientifically substantiated author's proposals and recommendations for improving the legislation in the field of sentencing for a set of sentences, the basis of which is a proposal to prohibit the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in respect of persons who have not removed or outstanding criminal record.
A study of the historical and legal development of criminal law on sentencing for multiple criminal offenses showed that the beginning of its historical development in modern Ukraine begins with the introduction of Christianity and the adoption of the Russian Truth.
The norms of the Sudebnik of King Casimir of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania in 1468, and the norms of the Lithuanian Statutes, and the oral norms of the Cossack custom, and the Hungarian Criminal Code of Crimes and Misdemeanors of 1879 provided for the most severe death penalty. curry.
In the twentieth century, the rules of Art. 37 of the Criminal Code of the USSR in 1922 and Art. 36 of the Fundamentals of Criminal Law of 1958 provides for cases of a person committing a new identical or homogeneous crime during the probationary period and establishes the rule of execution, each sentence independently and the rule of absorption from 1958. It is established that for more than 40 years in Ukraine the imposition of punishment on a set of sentences was regulated by the norms of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of the USSR in 1960, the concept, content and basic requirements of which are partially included in Art. 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine 2001
Establishing the state of scientific development of sentencing for a set of sentences in domestic criminal law made it possible to talk about the fact that despite the presence in the criminal law bibliography of scientific papers devoted to the study of issues such as the multiplicity of crimes (criminal offenses), and sentencing, the number of specialized modern studies of the order of sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the aggregate is clearly insufficient. Existing complex scientific investigations, in which sentencing by a set of sentences was presented as an independent special principle of sentencing, in the modern domestic doctrine of criminal law did not solve the existing problems.
