MODELS OF LEGISLATIVE DIFFERENTIATION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FOREIGN EXPERIENCE AND PROSPECTS FOR KAZAKHSTAN

The article presents a comparative legal study of contemporary models of the legislative differentiation of criminal liability. Based on an analysis of the criminal legislation of foreign states, it identifies the principal approaches to structuring systems of criminal liability differentiation, examines the specific features of their legislative design, and reveals current development trends. It is substantiated that the differences between national models are determined not so much by the set of individual criminal law institutions as by the nature of their systemic interaction and their role in determining the scope of criminal liability. The current model of the Republic of Kazakhstan is examined, and its distinctive features and directions for further improvement in light of foreign experience are identified. The study concludes that the model of legislative differentiation of criminal liability should be assessed through the degree of systemic coherence of its principal mechanisms. Such an approach ensures the consistent implementation of the principles of legality, justice, and the individualization of criminal liability.

1. Lea Johnston, E. Diminished criminal responsibility: A multinational comparative review / E. Lea Johnston, et al. // International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. – 2023. – Vol. 91. – Art. 101919.

2. T. Kirchengast. Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: Just Deserts for Victims and Defendants Alike? [Jelektronnyj resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2009/15.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com&__cf_chl_f_tk=M6EkasdhWpyztWsYjrxbg0CfxQuc_nzlQQ5T4ELB88I-1783087053-1.0.1.1-0yzJRNqGYxYXtyEjDPm3Xpc5KPigBq.Aqt.d8Vib0w8.

3. Jehle, J.-M. Dealing with Dangerous Offenders in Europe. A Comparative Study of Provisions in England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden / J.-M. Jehle, et al. // Criminal Law Forum. – 2021. – Vol. 32. – Pp. 181-245.

4. Cheng, K.K.-Y. Testing the Drugs’ Sentencing Guidelines: A Comparison between England and Wales and Hong Kong / K.K.-Y. Cheng, S. Ri, N. Pushkarna // Asian Journal of Comparative Law. – 2022. – № 17. – Pp. 167-190.

5. Coverdale, H.B. Putting Proportional Punishment into Perspective [Jelektronnyj resurs]. / H.B. Coverdale // Criminal Law and Philosophy. – 2024. – Rezhim dostupa: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10198891/7/Coverdale_s11572-024-09736-5.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

6. Manwaring, J. Proportionality’s Lower Bound riminal / J. Manwaring // Law and Philosophy. – 2021. – № 15. – Pp. 393-405.

7. Sulejmen, D.D. Prostupok i novaja klassifikacija pravonarushenij: za i protiv / D.D. Sulejmen // Құқyқ қorғau organdary Akademijasynyң Zharshysy. – 2020. – № 1 (15). – S. 33-39.

8. Kazhenov, E.E. Ugolovnye pravonarushenija protiv lichnosti (obshhee sostojanie otdel'nye voprosy sovershenstvovanija zakonodatel'stva) / E.E. Kazhenov, A.S. Kazhenova // Құқyқ қorғau organdary akademijasynyң Zharshysy. – 2020. – № 1 (15). – S. 17-26.