{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01566265060240964, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004819277108433735, 'mean_word_length': 4.752886836027714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Manifestation of Furor as an Element of a Gross Violation of the Regime in Places of Deprivation of Liberty

Currently, when executing a sentence of imprisonment, officials of the penal system often encounter convicts who show gross disobedience, including via furor. The increase in the number of acts of violence against staff performing their official duties illustrates a situation that requires legal regulation. Penal legislation has no clear definition of the concept “furor”. It is only mentioned in Part 1 of Article 86 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between the norms of the law of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation and the law on institutions and bodies on the application of security measures to convicts in furor reduces the effectiveness of the response actions of the penal system employees. For the formation of the most complete understanding of the concept “convict’s furor”, scientific works are analyzed; A.V. Brilliantov presents the most complete concept. The etymological meaning of the term is established. The history of the formation of the term “furor” in medical encyclopedias and reference books, and in the norms of law in the period from the end of the 19th century to the present is considered. A hypothesis is made that repeated malicious disobedience may be in the form of manifesting furor. A connection between the concepts of malicious violation of the sentence serving regime and the manifestation of furor in the norms of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation is noted. Part 1 of Article 86 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation mentions malicious disobedience to legal requirements, which is similar in content to Part 1 of Article 116 of this code, in which one of the malicious violations of the sentence serving regime is “a threat, disobedience to representatives of the administration of a correctional facility and their insult in the absence of signs of a crime”. As a result, two ways of solving the problem of inconsistency of the grounds for the application of security measures in the RF Penal Code and in the law on institutions and bodies are proposed. The first way is to exclude the term “manifestation of furor” from the list of grounds for applying security measures in the RF Penal Code. The second is defining the term “manifestation of furor” in the norms of law and its consolidation as the basis for the use of physical force and special means in the law on institutions and bodies.