Within the framework of this scientific article, the author conducts a comprehensive analysis of such a legal category as a measure of negative (retrospective) legal liability. Attention is focused on the problematic aspects of determining the measure of negative (retrospective) legal liability, caused by the identification in a number of scientific works of this concept with the sanction of a legal norm and a measure of state coercion, which raises doubts in the author and is refuted by the arguments presented in the article. In addition, the relationship between the concepts “measure of negative (retrospective) legal liability” and “measure of punishment” is analyzed, and arguments are given to argue that the concepts under consideration differ only formally and legally, but not meaningfully. Moreover, the author pays special attention to the question of what measures enshrined in legislation can be recognized as measures of negative (retrospective) legal liability and whether the very common point of view today is acceptable, according to which other measures of a criminal legal nature (forced measures of a medical nature, confiscation of property, a judicial fine), measures of compulsory educational influence, as well as cases of a guilty verdict without imposing punishment can be classified as measures of negative (retrospective) legal liability.
a measure of legal responsibility, qualitative characteristics, quantitative characteristics, adverse consequences, a measure of legal coercion; a measure of state coercion, a measure of punishment, a sanction of a legal norm
1. Kolosov N. M. Constitutional responsibility in the Russian Federation: responsibility of public authorities and other subjects of law for violation of the constitutional legislation of the Russian Federation. Institute of Legislation and Comparison. jurisprudence under the Government of the Russian Federation, 2000. 190 p. (In Russ.)
2. Krasnov A. V., Rybushkin N. N. On the issue of the peculiarities of the implementation of dispositions and sanctions of prohibiting norms. Kazan Social and Humanitarian Bulletin, 2010, no. 2, pp. 143–147. (In Russ.)
3. Kozhevnikov S. N. State coercion: essential aspects. Socio-political sciences, 2017, no. 3, pp. 71–74. (In Russ.)
4. Uporov I. V. State coercion: interpretation in the conceptual aspect. Legal sciences, 2023, no. 5 (2), pp. 545–548. (In Russ.)
5. Koloskov A. M. The concept and types of measures of state coercion: a comparative analysis of the concepts of the pre-revolutionary and modern periods. Network scientific and practical journal of private and public law, 2021, no. 1 (11), pp. 14–19. (In Russ.)
6. Vershinina S. I. Legal responsibility as a type of state coercion. Vector of Science TSU, 2009, no. 5 (8), pp. 23–30. (In Russ.)
7. Shershenevich G. F. General theory of law. Riga. 1924. p. 656 (In Russ.)
8. Malein N. S. About the Institute of Legal responsibility. Legal responsibility: problems and prospects. Proceedings on Jurisprudence, 1989. p. 30. (In Russ.)
9. Kaplin M. N. Criminal liability and punishment: the ratio of basic categories of criminal law. Penitentiary Science, 2009, no. 8, pp. 9–12. (In Russ.)
10. Sverchkov V. V. Responsibility and measures of criminal legal impact: punishment, upbringing, treatment, property recovery. Moscow, 2021. Pp. 26–48. (In Russ.)
11. Tolstik V. A. Legal responsibility and punishment: the problem of correlation. State and law, 2023, no. 10, pp. 63–70. (In Russ.)
