English-speaking penitentiary terminology: translation difficulties

The subject of the research is the translation of English-language penitentiary terminology into Russian. The object of the study is the collection of terms reflecting the institutions and procedures of the criminal enforcement systems of countries from the Anglo-Saxon legal family. The author examines different aspects of the topic such as the lack of direct legal equivalents, the polysemy of terms, regional differences in English terminology, and stylistic features, including the euphemization of terms. Special attention is paid to the development of adequate translation strategies—functional replacement, descriptive translation, and compensatory techniques—considering the text's purposes and the differences between legal systems. The analysis covers key concepts such as probation, parole, jail, prison, and others, demonstrating the need for a contextually grounded approach. Legal and cultural factors influencing the choice of equivalents are also discussed. The methodology of the study includes a comparative legal analysis to identify differences between legal systems, a linguistics-translation approach focusing on polysemy and contextual dependence of terms, and a comparative analysis of specific terminological units. The foundation for assessing the adequacy of translation lies in the principle of functional equivalence. An interdisciplinary approach is employed, integrating knowledge from penitentiary law, comparative law, and legal linguistics. The main conclusion of the study is that an adequate translation of English-language penitentiary terminology is impossible without considering fundamental differences between legal systems, institutional realities, and the context of use. The novelty of the research lies in the development of a systematic classification of translation difficulties caused by legal non-equivalence, polysemy, regional variability, and stylistic features of English terminology. It is proposed to use functional equivalence as the main criterion for translation in the absence of direct analogs, as well as to combine descriptive and compensatory strategies to ensure accuracy and clarity in professional and academic texts. It is emphasized that priority in legal translation should be given to legal accuracy rather than formal compliance or the imitation of political correctness of the original. The results can be applied in the practice of legal translation and teaching.