Criminological principles of transitional justice for Ukraine: zones of criminogenic risks

Abstract

The criminological bases of the concept of transitional justice for Ukraine in the part of the description are formulated, the most dangerous criminogenic risks of its realization are found out. It is proposed to distinguish two zones of such risks, which are manifested in the field of existential semantic dilemmas of transitional justice and conditions of legal singularity.
Such dilemmas of transitional justice as “truth vs justice”, “justice vs reconciliation” and “reconciliation vs truth” are described. The first is that the desire for just retribution for the suffering caused by the conflict and the existence of fear are contrary to plural rationality, the comprehensiveness of truth. This dilemma is a typical manifestation of binary opposition, which makes it impossible to think and practice in the format of nonlinearity of the history, socio-temporal multidimensionality in a single chronotope of pre-conflict and conflict events.
The dilemma of “justice vs. reconciliation” expresses the target and instrumental conflict between retributive and restorative justice, the moral and legal request of the parties to the fair criminal prosecution of offenders and amnesty as a factor in reducing public transit intolerance by those involved in the conflict.
The dilemma of “reconciliation vs. truth” is one of the manifestations of competing victimhood, as well as a consequence of metaphysical multiplicity of ontological simultaneous stay of the parties to the conflict in different socio-temporal modes: excellent narrative, discursive symbolic systems of thought, practice.
If the internal dimension of social conflict is maintained by foreign policy agents, an energy-charged social mythology, fueled by propaganda, collective commemorative practices, and postmemory mechanisms, becomes an obstacle to the substantive synchronization of time modes.
The connection between the shortcomings of the transitional justice components and hate crimes, the delegitimization of state and municipal authorities has been proved. Accent has been placed on the criminogenic significance of competing victimhood, the mythology of postmemory, the desynchronized elements of criminal justice and criminological policy. Emphasis has been placed on the criminogenic significance of shortcomings in approaches to restoring criminal justice mechanisms in the occupied territories, mutual exclusion of jurisdictions of the sovereign Ukrainian state and quasi-law enforcement, quasi-judicial bodies of the occupation administration, which creates obstacles for the conflict-free performance of tasks related to the further treatment of persons “convicted” by the bodies of the occupation administration for committing general criminal offenses under the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Similar criminogenic risks are formed within the legal regulation of relations on: a) recognition / non-recognition of quasi-legal facts in the field of registration of civil status, quasi-transactions with property that do not violate the rights and freedoms of citizens of Ukraine, i.e. are not socially dangerous or harmful, etc.; b) the legally significant status of special subjects of criminal offenses to ensure the possibility of bringing them to justice under the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on crimes committed by such subjects in the temporarily occupied territories.