The article analyzes punishment for convicts who commit new criminal offenses in places of deprivation of liberty of the State Criminal-Executive Service of Ukraine (SCES). It argues that the key problem is not the imposition of a new sentence but the persistence of criminal behavior under isolation, which indicates the insufficient effectiveness of correction as a primary goal of punishment. The paper critically reassesses the retention of the correction concept in the Criminal Code of Ukraine (2001) as a legacy of Soviet penal doctrine. Two approaches are discussed: punishment as retribution proportional to the gravity of the offense, and punishment as a means of returning a law-abiding citizen to society through correction, resocialization, and reintegration. The article notes that under martial law penal institutions operate in special conditions, and new offenses destabilize institutional security and hinder resocialization. It concludes that punishment should be understood not only as criminal sanctions but also as the capacity of penal institutions to restore the convict’s social status in accordance with accepted societal norms and behavioral standards. The study proposes revising national criminal policy, strengthening probation and social programs, improving risk assessment tools, and enhancing interagency cooperation to reduce recidivism and ensure sustainable reintegration. These measures align with international standards and contribute to protecting human rights and public safety. It supports evidence-based penal reform in Ukraine. Further.

Key words: punishment, behavior, convict, places of deprivation of liberty, correction, resocialization, reintegration, personnel, State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine, criminal offense.

References

1. Yaremko, O. M. (2009), The contamination of rational and humanistic dimensions in the genesis of the institution of punishment in the context of the European legal tradition : PhD thesis abstract, Kyiv.
2. Filei, Yu. V. (2003), “Concept of criminal sanction”, Bulletin of the Prosecutor’s Office, № 11, p. 30–35.
3. Knyzhenko, O. O. (2011), Sanctions in criminal law, NykaNova, Kharkiv.
4. Navrotskyi, V. (1999), “The significance of the sanction of an article of the criminal law for the qualification of an act”, Journal of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine“, № 3, pp. 117–125.
5. Vozniuk, A. A., Movchan, R. O. and Cherniei, V. V. (Eds) (2022), Novelties of criminal legislation adopted under martial law : scientific and practical commentary, Norma prava, Kyiv.
6. Hryshchuk, V. K. (2006), Criminal law of Ukraine, General part, Kyiv.
7. Omelchuk, O. M. (2013), “General principles of sentencing: legislative regulation and application practice”, University Scientific Notes, № 4, pp. 360–366.
8. Bohatyrov, I. H. (2025), The penitentiary system of Ukraine in the 21st century: theoretical, legal and criminal-executive problems, Dakor, Kyiv.
9. Dzhuzha, O. M. (ed.) (2013), Criminological foundations of crime prevention in penal institutions of Ukraine (penitentiary criminology): manual, National Academy of Internal Affairs, Kyiv.