Objective: Assessment of the legal impact, embedding in the current legal situation.
Research questions:
What experiences have been made with similar amnesty offers so far (e.g. in Ukraine: institutions of sincere remorse, in Brazil: Anti-Corruption Act, 2014, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Anti-Corruption_Act)?
How does the "Amnesty in Exchange for Guilty Plea" concept differ from these amnesty offers?
Which laws need to be adapted in Ukraine to make the concept of "Amnesty in Exchange for Guilty Plea" legally possible?
What is the procedure for making these adjustments?
Are further legal adjustments (instruments for law enforcement) necessary so that the population can be credibly assured that in the future corrupt acts are more likely to be uncovered and punished more severely than before the war (e.g. the immediate dismissal of judges ore prosecutors who are convicted of corruption or who have not made a guilty plea)?
What accuracy can be expected from guilty pleas when the admitted corrupt acts occurred several years ago (amount or performance, person involved).
How are erroneous statements in a guilty plea assessed?
How can it be assessed whether an erroneous statement was made intentionally or unintentionally?
How great is the danger that the offer of an amnesty will be abused for corrupt acts? What form might such abuse take?
What areas of national (and possibly international) law are affected if an amnesty for corruption offenses is implemented (under the condition of a guilty plea)?
The research on corruption distinguish between different types of corruption:
Grand Corruption vs. Petty Corruption, Political Corruption vs. Administrative/Bureaucratic Corruption, Bribery vs. Nepotism.
How must the concept "Amnesty in Exchange for Guilty Plea" be adapted for these different types of corruption so that the desired goal can be achieved?
Objective: The concept of "Amnesty in Exchange for Guilty Plea" leaves room for leeway at various points. For example, there is leeway with regard to the scope of the amnesty: can the amnestied person keep the illegally obtained assets or must they return them (in full)? What leeway does the concept offer overall and how are the incentives to agree to the concept changed (for the beneficiaries of the amnesty or for society) if the existing leeway is changed to one side or the other?
Research questions:
How can the incentives of the relevant actors (corrupt persons vs. society) be modeled (e.g. game theory)?
The research on corruption distinguish between different types of corruption:
Grand Corruption vs. Petty Corruption, Political Corruption vs. Administrative/Bureaucratic Corruption, Bribery vs. Nepotism.
Which of these types has the most damaging impact on Ukrainian society?
Method: Desktop research using opensource secondary data.
Objective: A broad understanding of which social groups in Ukraine will support or oppose the concept and what resistance must be overcome. Create the basis for the questions for the quantitative survey.
Research questions:
What attitude do the interviewees have towards corruption?
What attitude do the interviewees have towards the concept of "Amnesty in Exchange for Guilty Plea"? How do you justify this attitude?
What is society's attitude towards corruption: is there a need for punishment or are people generous if this enables the transition to a corruption-free society?
How do the interviewees assess society's attitude towards the concept of "Amnesty in Exchange for Guilty Plea"?
How likely do the interviewees think it is that this concept will be implemented?
etc.
Objective: Attitude of the population towards the concept of "Amnesty in Exchange for Guilty Plea". Which groups support the concept depending on which characteristics (e.g. demographic distribution etc.).
Method: Computer Assisted Web Interviewing
Sample size: 2000 respondents, the sample corresponds to the parameters of the urban population of Ukraine except for the temporarily occupied territories
Questionnaire: up to 15 minutes