scholarly journals Placing Juvenile Delinquents into Residential Correctional Schools

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 837-845
Author(s):  
Irina Smirnova ◽  
Vyacheslav Nikolyuk ◽  
Elena Markovicheva ◽  
Oksana Kachalova
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Delinquents ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Medical Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Correctional Schools

An integral part of modern criminal policy is criminal procedure policy regarding juvenile delinquents, aimed at resolving a criminal law conflict in the ways that are most beneficial for these persons and that lead to their re-integration in the society. The purpose of juvenile criminal proceedings is connected with special educational tasks and requires special procedures. In Russian criminal proceedings, the court can substitute criminal punishment with compulsory educational measures as part of such procedures. Russian system of compulsory educational measures is complicated, and a special place is held by the most severe sanction — directing a juvenile guilty of a grave crime or a crime of medium gravity into a special residential correctional school. The authors note that the legislation does not fully regulate the application of this sanction, which hinders its use by courts. They also present statistical data on the number of juveniles who the courts place into special residential correctional schools and analyze the reasons why this measure is seldom used. As there is no service of probation in Russia, the courts have no opportunity to find good solutions to the problems connected with a delinquent’s stay in a residential correctional school. The authors support the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to transfer these problems to the sphere of administrative court procedure, which should both benefit the court system and promote the rights of minors. They argue for the development of two strategic spheres of state criminal procedure policy for juveniles — that criminal court procedure should no longer deal with resolving socio-pedagogical, rehabilitation and medical problems of a juvenile's stay in a residential correctional school, and that there should be a detailed procedure for placing a juvenile into such an institution.

scholarly journals The use of digital communication technologies in the context of a pandemic as a way to improve the effectiveness of justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the peculiarities of the activity of courts in making judicial decisions in the context of a pandemic. First of all, we are talking about the wider use of digital and information technologies in criminal proceedings, which have previously been repeatedly recommended by forensic science for implementation in judicial practice. Some recommendations of criminalistics are currently accepted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision dated April 08, 2020 № 821 and Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the territory of the Russian Federation № 2, which provided appropriate explanations for their use in practice. In particular, we are talking about the possibility of using video conferencing systems for certain categories of criminal cases and materials that are considered urgent, although this is not provided for in criminal procedure legislation. It is concluded that it is necessary to change the current criminal procedure legislation, bring it into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts, including orders of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Realization of the Purpose of Criminal Proceedings by the Investigator and by the Defense Counsel: Opposition or Interaction?

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-24
Author(s):  
Svetlana Bulatova
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Defense Counsel ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Independent Auditing ◽  
Case Based

The author discusses relationships between the prosecution and the defense during the preliminary investigation of a criminal case. Based on the analysis of contemporary Russian criminal procedure legislation and the links between the criminal procedure theory and criminalistics, the author concludes that it is necessary to single out the following forms of relationships between the defense counsel and the investigator: cooperation and counteraction to the investigation. The author, taking into account existing theoretical views, differentiates between these two concepts using the criterion of the legality of the actions of the sides. Correspondingly, it is suggested that cooperation is the activity of the sides carried out within the framework of the criminal procedure legislation and aimed at the realization of the purpose of criminal court proceedings as stated in Art. 6 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of the Russian Federation. Using this as a basis, the author attempts to outline the procedural types of such interaction depending on the manner in which the defense counsel participates in proofing a criminal case. Firstly, there is a situation in which evidence is collected directly by the defense council. The author believes that in this case the investigator checks the evidence acting as an independent auditing body in the legal relationships and does not perform the function of the prosecution. Secondly, there is a procedural form of interaction when the defense counsel participates in the collection of evidence carried out by the side of the prosecution.

scholarly journals DISCUSSION ISSUES OF THE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 314 AND 316 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 877-884
Author(s):  
N.O. Mashinnikova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Absolute Number ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedures

In this article the author considers the simplified procedures of judicial proceedings from the point of view of their compliance with the basic principles of criminal proceedings, enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The article concludes that the race for the economic efficiency of any state process affected the proceedings as well. This was the reason that justice, as a service, was reborn in the state service of justice, which in turn led to a decrease in its quality, which according to the author is expressed not so much in the absence of "cancellations" as in its non-compliance with the principles and purpose enshrined in the criminal procedure code. The author welcomes the initiative of the Plenum of the Supreme Court about the need to adopt measures to decrease the absolute number of criminal cases dealt with in simplified procedures, however, did not agree with the solution proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In author’s opinion, the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation violate the rights of the accused to defense and contradict Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author presents her own proposal to change the code of criminal procedure in this part with bringing the necessary justification to that.

scholarly journals The Adversarial System in Criminal Procedure: Norms and Implementation

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 4039-4042
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Modern System ◽  
The Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The research is devoted to the analysis of the essence and place of the adversarial system in modern criminal procedure regulation. The existing acute debatability regarding the procedural status of the adversarial system in the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation necessitates the appeal of scholars to this category. The purpose of identifying the true procedural nature of the adversarial system and the boundaries of its implementation is directly related to the determination of the correct place of this procedural category in the modern system of criminal procedure regulation. The analysis of modern scientific views on the procedural status of the adversarial system indicates the presence of diametrical views on the compliance of the adversarial system with the characteristics of an independent industry-wide principle. A controversial opinion about the extension of the principle of adversarial practice to the pre-trial stages of Russian criminal proceedings is noted. According to the authors, the current law enforcement practice confirms the implementation of the "pure" adversarial system only in the judicial stages of the criminal process. Taking into account the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the work provides an argumentation of the authors’ position on the advisability of changing the status and, accordingly, the place of the adversarial system in the structure of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation from the "industry-wide principle" to the "general condition of the trial".

scholarly journals SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROSECUTOR'S PARTICIPATION IN REHABILITATION (IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 747-752
Author(s):  
A.I. Shmarev
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The author of the article, based on the analysis of statistical indicators of the Prosecutor's office for 2018-2019 and examples of judicial practice, including the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, examines the problematic issues of implementing the right to rehabilitation of persons unlawfully and unreasonably subjected to criminal prosecution, and the participation of the Prosecutor in this process. According to the author, the ambiguous judicial practice of considering issues related to the rehabilitation of this category of citizens requires additional generalization and analysis in order to make appropriate changes to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 of 29.11.2011 "On the practice of applying the norms of Chapter 18 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regulating rehabilitation in criminal proceedings". The examples given in the article of cancellation of lower-level court decisions were based on complaints of persons who independently sought to restore their rights, and not on the representations of the prosecutors involved in them, who were called upon to ensure the possibility of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms at the court session. The adoption of organizational measures, including those proposed by the author, in the system of the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation will increase the role of the Prosecutor in protecting the rights of illegally and unreasonably prosecuted persons.

scholarly journals CLOSED COURT HEARING AS AN INDEPENDENT SECURITY MEASURE FOR PARTICIPANTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 286-290
Author(s):  
R.M. Ramazanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
Independent Form ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Hearing

The publicity of the trial in the Russian criminal trial has been one of the important provisions for several decades and is expressed in the realization of the right of citizens to be present in court when considering and resolving a criminal case. However, an open criminal court may be limited if the grounds listed in Part 2 of Art. 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are established as an exception to the general condition of the trial. One of these grounds is a closed court hearing, which is considered as an independent form of ensuring the safety of participants in the process and their loved ones. The creation of safe conditions for citizens to participate in the court session allows the court to establish and verify the evidence collected in the case (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). At the same time, security applies not only to participants from the defense or prosecution, other participants in the process, but also in relation to the court (judge). A closed hearing is one of several security measures (part 3 of article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The decision of the matter and the holding of a trial in private can only be determined if there are strictly established procedural grounds. Such a decision should be motivated.

scholarly journals The Application of Video Conferencing in Criminal Proceedings: Prospects of Legal Changes

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 14-18
Author(s):  
Maryam Sh. Bufetova ◽  
◽  
Dmitriy N. Kobzar ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Video Conferencing ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Video Conferencing System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
Conferencing System

The article discusses the use of video conferencing systems in criminal proceedings under the current legislation. The prospect of changing the norms of criminal procedure legislation with the extension of the possibility of using videoconferencing systems to the stage of preliminary investigation is considered. Studied problematic and debatable issues of conducting investigative actions remotely via videoconference-studied the types of investigative actions that can be carried out remotely, the grounds and procedure for their conduct and certification. Various points of view on the possibility of using the video conferencing system at the stage of preliminary investigation, as well as the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, were studied. It is concluded that it is necessary to introduce such changes in the criminal procedure legislation in the context of the pandemic and the worldwide spread of coronavirus.

The Requirement of Legality of Decisions of the Criminal Court: The Legal Basis and Content Components

2021 ◽  
pp. 213-224
Author(s):  
Sergey V. Burmagin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Russian Science ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

Legality as a complex legal requirement to judicial decisions, developed for a long time by Russian science and legal practice, was formally consolidated in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 and extended to all decisions of the criminal court. However, the wording of the law does not fully and adequately reflect the content of this requirement, and to some extent it contradicts the established scientific ideas and needs of judicial practice. In this regard, the author aims to reveal the content side of the concept of legality of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings, both from a historical perspective and from the perspective of modern legal understanding, and to justify the need to adjust the legislative expression of this requirement. The research problems are solved using historical, dialectical and comparative legal methods of cognition based on the analysis of relevant theoretical concepts developed by the Russian science of criminal procedure law, the provisions of criminal procedure legislation and the legal positions of the judicial authorities: the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, federal courts of general jurisdiction. The legal sources of regulatory requirements that the criminal court should follow when making procedural decisions have been identified. The author substantiates the need for an expanded understanding of the legality of judicial decisions as their compliance not only with direct instructions of the law, but also with legal provisions contained in other forms of law: constitutional norms, generally recognized principles and norms of international law, established legal customs, as well as standards of justice developed by judicial practice and legal positions on specific issues of law enforcement. In the context of historical development, the material and procedural aspects of the requirement of legality of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings are analyzed and its content components are formulated. Continuity and at the same time dynamism of doctrinal and legislative approaches to determining the legality of court decisions supported by judicial practice are noted. Certain shortcomings of the normative consolidation of the requirement of legality of court decisions in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are revealed, in connection with which specific proposals are made to change and optimize certain formulations of the procedural law that determine the content of the requirement of legality of a sentence and other court decisions in criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals Problems of establishing facts by the courts necessary for making a procedural decision in pretrial stages

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-54
Author(s):  
Svetlana Vladimirovna Nikitina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Social Significance ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Decisions

The subject of this research is the problems caused by the absence of explicit regulations in the criminal procedure law on the rules for establishing facts by the courts necessary for decision-making, as well as recommendations for their solution. These problems include thee difficulties in determining the proper and acceptable procedural behavior of the court and the parties to criminal proceedings in pretrial stages, intricacies of making a procedural court decision in cases of failure of proof, ambivalence of the court's approaches demonstrated by the legislator and the highest judicial bodies (the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ) pertinent to regulation of judicial activity in pre-trial stages, etc. Special attention is turned to the procedure of establishing facts by the court in pretrial stages in view of the special legal and social significance of the procedural decisions made by the court, which restrict the constitutional rights of the citizens and require most full guarantees of their justness. The result of the conducted research is reflected in the author’s recommendations for solution of the indicated issues. The conclusions lies in theoretical provisions on the possible legislative approaches towards determining the judicial activity in pre-trial proceedings based on the following principles: personalization (differentiation of the form depending on procedural status of the actors), simplification (no excessive formalization), variability (presence of several variants of the procedure, the application of which depends on the procedural situation and the purpose of activity of the court), application of actions regulate by the Criminal Procedure Code among other procedural acts available to the court and parties to the court hearing.

scholarly journals Procedural Enforcement Measures Consisting in the Isolation of a Minor Suspect and Defendants: Implementation of International Standards in Russian Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 58-62
Author(s):  
Kirill V. Muraviev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
A Minor

Russian legislation reflects international standards for the use of coercive measures of isolation of juvenile offenders as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. However, the RF Code of Criminal Procedure does not define a closed list of exceptional circumstances to regulate the conditions for detention of juvenile suspects and accused. Neither does it define the exceptions and other conditions for the detention of adolescents in comparison with the rules for the detention of adult offenders. Further improvement of the RF Criminal Procedure Code and correction of the clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are required to reinforce the guarantees of the rights of underage participants in criminal proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document