On Types of Correctional Institutions

Introduction. Due to the different density of population in the Russian Federation and the scale of its territory, correctional system facilities should represent a unified system, in which the institutions are interrelated and interchangeable. In the conditions of a large number of types and sub-types of correctional institutions, the possibility of interchangeability is weakened. Problems associated with the quality of ensuring the internal isolation of convicts have a significant impact on the level of crime and penitentiary security. Hence, the punishment execution practice should more flexibly use the norms on separation of convicts to achieve goals and objectives of the penal executive legislation. Methods: the research used a dialectical method for cognizing objective reality, a logical method, a modeling method, a formal legal method, a systemic method. Results and discussion: the constantly changing socio-criminological portrait of the offender and the level of crime force the legislator to revise criminal-legal and criminal-executive criteria for differentiating those sentenced to imprisonment. The mentioned reasons also affect group differentiation that occurs in the process of distributing convicts to dormitory accommodation (cells) within the correctional institution. The crime level in a separate RF subject and changes in the state criminal policy require the reassignment of correctional institutions as a whole. The system of correctional institutions should not overwhelmingly depend on the criminal-legal criteria of those sentenced to imprisonment and the changing criminal policy of the state, and at the same time, departmental regulation should not bolster the legislatively established system of correctional institutions. Conclusions: the legislator has established a wide range of types of correctional institutions for those sentenced to imprisonment. Remoteness of some of them from the place of residence of convicts, to a certain extent, has both positive and negative impact on their social ties, which ultimately affects the effectiveness of implementation of the panel enforcement legislation goals and objectives.