The definition of the dynamic characteristic of punishment as a special type of Criminal Law measures is proposed which determines functions. Normatively defined penalty functions as punishment, rehabilitation, general and special deterrence were investigated.Using cultural and anthropological methodology the list of legal goods was determined, its restriction can not be influenced by the punitive function of penalty. It has been proven that the corrective function can not be considered exceptionally as support one during the execution of the punishment function, and it has an independent character. It has been determined that preventive functions are inherent not only to the penalty but also to the encouraging criminal law measures.

Thus, the legal content of preventive function of punishment is expressed in the implementation of such basic direction of its influence, which is characterized by the achievement of the goal of preventing the commission of a criminal person and other persons of new crimes by using of punishment.

Thus, the content of normatively determined functions of punishment – punishment, correction, prevention, which are oriented at getting socially useful result in the process of implementing of this form of criminal liability, is a subject for  certain adjustment, taking into account the dominance of law principle and the usage of such scientific research methods, which focuse on the achievements of cultural development and the recognition of a man as centripetal force of Criminal Law its individual institutions functioning.

Key words: penalty, penalty functions, punishment, rehabilitation, prevention.

REFERENCES

1. Denysova, T.A. (2006), “Poniattia funktsii pokarannia ta yikh zahalna kharakterystyka“, Universytetski naukovi zapysky, No. 1. pp. 222–227.

2. Zhizhilenko, A.A. (1914), Nakazanie. Ego ponjatie i otlichie ot drugih pravonarushitel’nyh mer, Petrograd.

3.Kovalskyi, V.S. (2010), Okhoronna funktsiia prava, monohrafiia, Yurinkom Inter, Kyiv.

4. Kozachenko, O.V. (2013), “Funktsionalni kharakterystyky kryminalno-pravovykh zakhodiv“, Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Seriia Yurysprudentsiia: zbirnyk naukovykh prats, Odesa, Vol.

5. pp. 170–175.5. Kozachenko, O.V., Musychenko, O.M. and Sydorenko, O.M. (2015), Kryminalna vidpovidalnist ta forma yii realizatsii, Ilion, Mykolaiv.

6. Mihlin, A.S. (1974), Lichnost’ osuzhdennyh i problema ih ispravlenija i perevospitanija, avtoref. dis. … d-ra jurid. nauk: spec. 12.00.08, Ugolovnoe pravo i kriminologija, ugolovno-ispolnitel’noe pravo, Moskva.

7. Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy, (2007), Yurydychna dumka, Kyiv.

8. Lazarev, V.V. (1996), Obshhaja teorija prava i gosudarstva, Jurist, Moskva.

9. Remenson, A.L. (1965), Teoreticheskie voprosy ispolnenija lishenija svobody i perevospitanija zakljuchennyh, avtoref. dis. … d-ra jurid. nauk: spec. 12.00.08 Ugolovnoe pravo i kriminologija; ugolovno-ispolnitel’noe pravo, Tomsk.

10. Rybushkin, N.N. (1990), Zapreshhajushhie normy v sovetskom prave, Izd. Kazan. un-ta Kazan’.

11. Sergievskij, N.D. (2004), Russkoe ugolovnoe pravo. Filosofija ugolovnogo prava, Sankt-Peterburg.

12. Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy v 11 tomakh, (1971), Vol. 2: D–Zh, Naukova dumka, Kyiv.

13. Smulevich, B.Ja. (1965), Narodnoe zdorov’e i sociologija. Moskva.

14. Sovremennyj filosofskij slovar’, (1998), Panprint, London, Frankfurt-na-Majne; Parizh, Ljuksemburg, Moskva, Minsk.

15. Sych, K.A. (1990), “K voprosu o celi ispravlenija i perevospitanija osuzhdennyh“, Celi ugolovnogo nakazanija: sbornik nauchnyh trudov, Rjazan’, pp. 80–86.

16. Filosofskij slovar’ (2001), Respublika, Moskva.