scholarly journals A Stochastic Model of the Repressive-Preventive Impact on Crime: from Intuition to Calculations

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 665-680
Author(s):  
Sergey Maksimov ◽  
Yury Vasin ◽  
Kanat Utarov
Keyword(s):  
Stochastic Model ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Gradual Transition ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors analyze the use of new digital technologies for automated collection, analysis and assessment of large volumes of data on crime, its key factors and the effects of crime countraction efforts with the goal of a gradual transition from the intuitive method of crime counteraction to the calculations-based one. The hypothesis of the study is that a continuous multi-source monitoring of quantitative crime indices, factors and the effects of crime counteraction efforts will make it possible not only to optimize budgetary expenditure on fighting crime, but also to find effective solutions for other practical problems of crime counteraction efforts (specifically, problems of evaluating and compensating the inflicted damage, problems of reducing the number of ungrounded changes in criminal, criminal procedure and penitentiary legislation). A specific modern feature of the state policy of combating crime is that digital technologies make it possible to develop and implement a stochastic model of repressive-preventive impact on crime with the use of criminal law, criminal procedure and penitentiary measures. It is suggested that the use of the stochastic model of repressive-preventive impact on crime should be viewed as a necessary condition for the development and adoption of national and regional programs of crime counteraction financed by the federal and regional budgets. The authors believe that the introduction of the stochastic model of the repressive-preventive impact in the practice of crime counteraction should be conducted in several stages. At the first stage, the federal law and the Act of the RF Government shoud determine the conditions of a mid-term experiment on the territories of some subjects of the Russian Federation, which will ensure a continuous monitoring, including the collection, processing and analysis of statistical data, results of population and experts’ surveys on the condition and dynamics of grave and especially grave crime, its factors and the effects of state efforts to counteract such crimes. At the final stage of the introduction of a stochastic model of the repressive-preventive impact on crime in the practice of state governance, the authors suggest creating an automated federal system of multi-source monitoring of indexed crimes (these are the crimes most «sensitive» for achieving the goals of national security and ensuring public order, which require non-stop monitoring), their key factors and the results of counteracting them. Key expected results from the introduction of this stochastic model and a continuous mlti-source monitoring into the practice of crime counteraction should be the optimization of budgetary expenses on criminal prosecution, the reduction of the number of inmates, the reduction of the number of changes introduced into the Criminal, Criminal Procedure and Penitentiary Codes of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Meaning of the Category “Validity of the Charge” in Criminal Proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 218-223
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedure ◽  
Special Order

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.

scholarly journals The subject of judicial control in consideration of complaints: controversial issues of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The purpose of this study was an attempt to theoretically understand the subject of judicial consideration of complaints against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials carrying out criminal prosecution. The research was carried out on the basis of comparative legal, formal logical, empirical, statistical methods. Judicial statistics for the year 2020 have been provided, and legislation has been studied from a historical and contemporary perspective, taking into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The problem is that, in practice, for about 20 years the courts have had difficulties in determining the subject of complaints, since neither in theory nor in practice a consensus has been developed on this issue. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also does not contain a definition of the concept of «subject matter». The situation is aggravated by the presence of evaluative concepts in the text of the law, leading to a varied understanding of the subject of appeal by the courts, which leads to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. In the article, taking into account the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, legislation and the opinion of scientists, a recommendation was made to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to specify the subject of consideration of complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate existing contradictions in practice and increase the level of protection of individual rights in pre-trial proceedings.

scholarly journals ANTI-CORRUPTION THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LEGISLATION OF RUSSIA

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 646-649
Author(s):  
Alexander Yurevich Epihin ◽  
Oleg Aleksandrovich Zaitsev ◽  
Ekaterina Pavlovna Grishina ◽  
Andrey Viktorovich Mishin ◽  
Gulnar Isaevna Aliyeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
The Russian Federation

Purpose: In article current trends of application of the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation in compliance with the purpose of criminal legal proceedings and in the context of counteraction corruption and prevention of abuse of the law of the officials who are carrying out criminal prosecution and judicial review and permission of criminal cases are stated. Methodology: In the course of the research of problematic issues and statements of the material of the article the dialectic, comparative and legal, law modeling, logical, inductive and deductive methods were used. Result: As shows investigative and judicial practicians there are enough the facts of unreasonable initiation of legal proceedings concerning businessmen, with an application of measures of criminal procedure coercion (arrest on the property, blocking of bank accounts and so forth) which result is crash of firm. Change of territorial jurisdiction of consideration of the case of another region by the court is directed to the elimination of a possibility of rendering an impact on objectivity of adjudication. Casual distribution of participation of the lawyer in a criminal case to a destination (when he has to be present surely for protection of the defendant) promotes impartiality of realization of the function of protection in pre-judicial production. The intention of the legislator to enter the obligatory video protocol of court session is directed to a performance by all participants of the process of legal instructions and duties will eliminate possible manifestations of corruption character by officials. Applications: This research can be used for universities, teachers, and students. Novelty/Originality: In this research, the model of Anti-Corruption The Criminal Procedure Legislation of Russia is presented in a comprehensive and complete manner.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL PROSECUTION: THE PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 142-145
Author(s):  
K. A. Talalaev
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Historical Process ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

The author of the article uses historical and comparative legal research methods and studies the term criminal prosecution. The term criminal prosecution is compared with other similar concepts in the article. The author examines the historical process of formation of this concept. The author of the article will outline the content of the discussion about the term criminal prosecution. The modern definition of this term is not correct in the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. The author proposes a new definition of the term. Criminal prosecution is the procedural activity of the prosecution in order to expose a person of committing an act prohibited by the criminal law.

scholarly journals Initiation of Criminal Proceedings against a Particular Person as the Ground for Recognizing him as a Suspect (para 1, part 1, art. 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
I. V. Smolkova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Status ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper is devoted to the analysis of a new ground for recognition of a person as a suspect, introduced under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, namely, the initiation of a criminal case against the person. The ground under consideration has caused controversial debates among criminal process scholars. The author has carried out a retrospective analysis of the legislative regulation of this ground for giving a person the status of the suspect. The paper evaluates various doctrinal approaches to its merits and disadvantages. The author also demonstartes the need for the new ground for recognition of a person as the suspect in law enforcement on the basis of statistical data, according to which more than half of criminal cases in Russia are initiated against a particular person. The study at question reveals an interconnection between initiation of proceedings upon commission of a crime and a particular person. The conclusion is substantiated that the recognition of a person as a suspect in case of initiation of criminal proceedings against him is aimed at ensuring his right to protection from criminal prosecution. However, the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person entails the possibility of implementation of coercive criminal procedural measures against him. It is shown that suspicion forms the substantive basis of recognition of a person as the suspect. The author criticises the approach according to which the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person forms an allegation that he has committed an act prohibited under the criminal law. Under this approach the assumption is made that can later be either proven or refuted in the course of further investigation. The author criticises the practice of dividing criminal cases into a judicial perspective and lacking such a perspective, which entails violations of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals suspected in committing crimes.

scholarly journals PROBLEMS OF LEGISLATIVE REGULATION OF DETENTION OF PERSONS PERFORMING CERTAIN TYPES OF PUBLIC LEGAL ACTIVITY

2020 ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Владимир Юрьевич Стельмах
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

В статье рассматриваются вопросы нормативного регулирования избрания меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в отношении лиц, выполняющих определенные виды публично-правовой деятельности и в силу этого наделенных законодательством иммунитетом от уголовного преследования; порядок рассмотрения компетентными государственными органами ходатайств органов предварительного расследования и прокуратуры о лишении лица иммунитета от уголовного преследования; анализируются положения уголовно-процессуального закона и иных нормативных актов, регламентирующих правовой статус лиц, обладающих данным иммунитетом. Особое внимание уделяется порядку избрания меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в отношении членов Совета Федерации, депутатов Государственной Думы и судей. Предлагаются корректировки уголовно-процессуального закона и закрепление положений об обязательности получения согласия компетентного государственного органа на избрание, а не на исполнение меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу. The article deals with the problems of regulatory regulation of detention of persons performing certain types of public legal activities, for which immunity from criminal prosecution is established. The special features of the detention of these persons are provided for by the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as other normative acts. At present, the law establishes that a court decision on detention against members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma and judges is executed with the consent of the Chamber of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or the qualification board of judges. Taking into account the principle of the independence of the court and the obligation of court decisions, it is proposed to amend the law and to provide for the consent of these bodies to choose this preventive measure, rather than to implement the court decision.

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 On the problem of establishing a condition for compensation for damage and making amends for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.

scholarly journals Legal Basis for the Use of Digital Technologies in Criminal Proceedings in Russia

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
Andrei Mikhaylovich Dolgov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Life ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Tech Nologies ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Logical Research

The present study considers certain issues of de-termining the legal basis for the use of digital tech-nologies in criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation. The purpose of the research is to deter-mine the place of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation among the legal acts regu-lating the specified use of digital technologies. The relevance of the study is determined by the expan-sion of digitalization in the criminal process in Rus-sia. The novelty of the research is to identify the legal basis of the criminal process in Russia in the context of the use of digital technologies. In the course of the work, domestic criminal procedure norms regulating these issues, the results of socio-logical research on introduction of digital technolo-gies in public life, the opinions and positions of leading Russian and foreign (Republic of Kazakh-stan) scientists were examined. As a result of the research, the author comes to the conclusion that the legal basis for the use of digital technologies in criminal proceedings should be the norms of the law contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The Identification of Close Relatives of the Deceased Suspect or Accused in Criminal Proceedings: the Problems of the Legal Regulation and Interaction

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 90-99
Author(s):  
Kristina Trifonova ◽  
Mikhail Shmatov ◽  
Vadim Perekrestov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Body ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Deceased Person ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Close Relatives

Introduction: the termination of a criminal case or refusal to initiate a criminal case on a non-rehabilitative basis, provided for in paragraph 4, part 1, Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, will have a certain degree of specificity in the production of procedural actions. A sign of this type of proceedings is the appearance of a special category of subjects of criminal procedural relations – close relatives of the deceased person, who can initiate further investigation of the criminal case and its consideration in court in order to rehabilitate the deceased suspect or accused. These subjects are involved in the plane of legal relations in connection with the presence of their “legitimate interest”, both of a property and non-property nature. A detailed study of the criminal procedure status of a person against whom the criminal prosecution was carried out, but he was not given the status of a suspect or accused, is due to the need to establish the circle of his close relatives. The effectiveness of this activity depends both on the successful interaction of the subject of the investigation with the body of inquiry and other state bodies, and on the legal regulation of the situation in criminal proceedings of close relatives and other interested persons of the deceased. The purpose of the study is to analyze the legal status of the deceased person not only at the stage of procedural verification, but also at the stage of preliminary investigation, as well as to suggest the ways to solve problems, related to the involvement of close relatives and other interested persons of the deceased in the investigation process, including through the use of various forms of interaction of the subject of the investigation with the body of inquiry and the state bodies. Methods: in the course of the study, the general and specific scientific methods were used, namely: comparative research, system analysis and logical-legal. Results: the paper analyzes the current regulatory regulation of the legal status of a deceased person during a procedural check before making a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case, and provides a comparative legal analysis of similar legal provisions under the legislation of some foreign countries. The problems associated with the moment when it is necessary to obtain the consent of close relatives for making a decision in accordance with paragraph 4 of part 1 of the article are identified. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the directions and conditions of the activity of the investigative body in connection with the adoption of this decision are defined. It is indicated that the circle of related persons whose opinion needs to be clarified is not defined in the law. In this regard, it is proposed to rely on the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and find out the opinion primarily of close relatives, the establishment of which depends on the successful application of various forms of interaction. Conclusions: the legislative recommendations are proposed to improve the legal status of a deceased person who has not yet been given the status of a suspect or accused, but in relation to whom the criminal prosecution was carried out. The paper analyzes in detail the activities of the investigation body to identify close relatives in order to clarify their opinion on the decision made in accordance with paragraph 4, part 1, Article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The recommendations on the organization of interaction aimed at identifying the specified participants in the criminal process are given.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document