ПОКАРАННЯ ЯК ВИД ЮРИДИЧНОЇ ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНОСТІ В НАУКОВІЙ СПАДЩИНІ УКРАЇНСЬКИХ НАУКОВЦІВ - ПРИХИЛЬНИКІВ ПОЗИТИВІСТСЬКОЇ ПАРАДИГМИ СЕРЕДИНИ ХІХ - ПОЧАТКУ ХХ СТОРІЧЧЯ

The article is devoted to the study of the interpretation of the essence and nature of punishment as a component of legal responsibility, which allows you to effectively respond to changes in social relations and ensure the principle of justice, which is necessary to maintain balance in society and the state. The article examines different approaches to the interpretation of the nature of punishment in the writings of jurists - supporters of the positivist paradigm of law, who worked in Ukraine in the middle of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Modern discussions focus on important aspects of legal responsibility, especially regarding its stability and dynamism in the conditions of global challenges for the existence of humanity. Legal responsibility and justice are closely related because it serves as a tool to achieve justice in any legal system. Changes in social values significantly affect the perception and role of punishment as a mutual process between a person and society. Punishment affects not only the person of the criminal, but also society, which needs a visible reaction to the violation of the balance and justice of social existence. It is important to maintain a balance between stability and dynamism of legal responsibility: stability gives the legal system reliability, while dynamism allows it to adapt to modern conditions and needs of society. Analyzing different views on the essence of punishment, the authors found out that famous scientists - L. Vladimirov, O. Kistiakivskyi - share several common views. First, they did not consider legal responsibility to be an independent legal institution inherent in certain branches of law. Second, they considered punishment within the framework of criminal law and considered the nature of responsibility depending on many factors. They provided a structured classification of punishments depending on specific factors affecting the use of a certain type of punishment. They were supporters of the humanization of punishments and considered the very process of serving the punishment not so much as the suffering of the criminal personally, but as his reeducation and socialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]