THE IDEA OF COMPROMISE IN THE RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCESS AS A MEANING OF COURT ACTIVITY OF CRIME

Author(s):  
Alexander G. Markelov ◽  

The article proposes an original approach that explains the obvious ideological nature of the use of compromise technologies on certain alternative procedures of the Russian criminal process and is considered as an applied tool for combating crime. Such proposals occur against the background of an obvious trend of humanization of punishment and exemption from criminal responsibility of certain categories of persons. The author claims justifiably that new prospectiveand at the same time conflict-free (compromise) forms of criminal procedure for the rapid resolution of criminal cases have been created in the Russian criminal process.At the same time, the author believes that one of the most important advantages of the use of compromise technologies, provided that there are no aggravating circumstances, is the ability to resolve the criminal-law conflict between the parties concerned quickly and create a favorable environment of reciprocity and understanding. The author believes that the idea of compromise as a certain measure of combating crime has already been implemented in modern procedural algorithms for resolving criminal cases through reduced criminal proceedings in the form of an inquiry, specific (compromise) proce-dures in the form of: the court making a final decision on a criminal case with the consent of the accused with the charge brought by the investigating authorities; the court making a final decision on a criminal case when concluding a pre-trial agreement on cooperation (a deal with justice); proceedings in a criminal case on the appointment of criminal-law measures in the form of a court fine when a person is exempt from criminal liability; a termination of the criminal case and criminal prosecution against the suspect or accused in conjunction with the reconciliation of the parties, a termination of criminal prosecution against the suspect or accused in conjunction with active repentance, a termination of criminal prosecution against the suspect or accused in cases of crimes in the field of economic activity, the election of certain preventive measures and the conduct of the individual investigative actions under the individual compromise circumstances. The author believes that the construction of a legal model of criminal procedure compro-mise as a measure to counter modern crime will contribute to the optimization of the Russian criminal proceedings in the interests of the individual, society and the state as a whole. The work proposes the justification of a new scientific direction - the criminal procedure concept of using compromise - and the prospects for its application in scientific research and practical activities to counter modern crime.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-173
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Markelov

The article proposes an original approach explaining the obvious ideological nature of the existence in the Russian criminal process of an evidentiary compromise with a special procedure for stopping criminal prosecution and exempting a minor from criminal liability using coercive educational measures. The author rightly argues that in modern criminal proceedings there has been created a promising, at the same time, conflict-free criminal procedure form of resolving a criminal case on the merits. In particular, the legislator, with strict and strict observance of the principles of the criminal process, formed a special compromise and at the same time evidentiary procedure for the court to make a final decision on the criminal case in the form of termination of criminal prosecution and exemption from criminal liability of a minor with the use of compulsory educational measures. The work concludes on the unconditional effectiveness of this compromise order, as well as the need to further improve such alternative evidentiary proceedings in order to promptly resolve the criminal case and implement the purpose of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Ol'ga Polikarpova

The article considers the question of the interdependence of the improvement of the institution of suspicion and the transformation of the initial stage of the Russian criminal process. The article highlights the problem of the legislative limitation of the period of the procedural status of a person as a suspect in the event of a criminal case being initiated not against him, but upon the commission of a crime and insufficient evidence of the involvement/non-involvement of such a person in a criminal offence committed at the initial stage of the investigation, which often does not allow avoiding unreasonable restrictions on the constitutional rights and freedoms of this participant in criminal proceedings. The relevant experience of some post-Soviet states that followed the path of a radical change in the criminal procedure model after the collapse of the USSR is analysed. The article compares the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic directly related to the institution of suspicion, including the moment of triggering criminal prosecution and the duration of a suspect’s keeping the specified procedural status. The arguments given in the article substantiate the need to reform the initial moment of the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in Russian criminal proceedings and the associated expediency of abolishing the stage of initiation of a criminal case in order to increase the guarantee of the rights and legitimate interests of the person introduced into the procedural status we are analysing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 142-151
Author(s):  
V. I. Ivanov

The purpose of the paper is to conduct a systemic study of the internal structure and functions of criminal procedural activity based on patterns of formation of tree-like hierarchical structures, to determine the goals and objectives of criminal proceedings at different levels of the system hierarchy. Within the framework of the study, the criminal procedure is considered as a system with complex inter-element relationships and its own mutual influence on its structural elements. Based on the distinction between the categories "purpose", "goal", "result", the author concludes that the purpose of the criminal process is to resolve the materials on the merits in the production of the preliminary investigation bodies and the court in accordance with the requirements of criminal procedural law providing for criminal law application. The study establishes the possibility of achieving the goal of the criminal procedure at any stage in the case of the simultaneous fulfillment of two conditions: the identification of objective criminal procedural grounds for the completion of the criminal process using the criminal law and ensuring the implementation of the principles of criminal proceedings. Through the goals and principles of criminal procedural activity, the author defines the objectives and main functions of criminal proceedings, identifies the general goal and objectives of the bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation and the court. The author concludes that the establishment of objective criminal procedural grounds for the resolution of materials in production with the application of criminal law is ensured because of preliminary verification of the materials, preliminary investigation or the implementation of the functions of the judiciary by solving the tasks facing the bodies of inquiry, investigation and court. The paper establishes the real purpose and goals of criminal prosecution, defense, judicial and departmental control, prosecutorial and judicial supervision.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-513
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Derishev

In November 2019, the world legal community widely celebrated the 125th anniversary of Professor M. S. Strogovich, who, according to his scientific colleagues and students, was a scientist who was “ahead of time”.This article provides a retrospective and comparative analysis of the positions of M. S. Strogovich and his colleagues on certain problems of domestic criminal proceedings, in particular its pre-trial phase, in the context of the direct influence of the scientist's scientific heritage on the development of modern criminal procedure law. The Author of the article particularly interesting views of the scientist and his participation in discussions related to defining the essence and purpose of the preliminary investigation, the implementation of the functions of preliminary investigation in relation to criminal prosecution, the problems of implementation of the principles of presumption of innocence and the adversarial nature of pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, and, finally, the General Manager of the “investigative case” in modern Russia.M. S. Strogovich consistently adhered to the idea of the need to develop and strengthen procedural guarantees of individual rights, guarantees of justice, and this can be seen in this article. Thus, defining the essence of the criminal process as a system of actions of the relevant officials and the procedural legal relations that arise in connection with them, which in itself was a serious “scientific courage” of those years, M. S. Strogovich particularly defended the position that all participants in criminal proceedings are subjects of the rights granted to them and the duties assigned to them, and they should not be considered objects of unilateral power of officials. This idea has become widespread and generally accepted as the basic definition of domestic (Soviet and Russian) criminal proceedings.The article analyzes M. S. Strogovich’s scientific steps on the conceptual turn from revolutionary-radical ideas about the construction of criminal proceedings to its classical canons and traditions of the Russian criminal process, On the basis of which the conclusion is made about the indispensable use of the scientist's legacy in modernьRussian procedural studies.The research of M. S. Strogovich’s legacy carried out in the article will fully allow to rethink the modern system of criminal proceedings in a new way, can be used as a kind of key to finding solutions to law-making and law enforcement problems, for the further development of the national science of criminal procedure law.


Author(s):  
O.A. Maksimov

The article examines the purpose of the modern Russian criminal procedure as a way of implementing the constitutionally defined tasks of the state. With a variety of approaches to defining the subject of research, one can single out two interrelated, but also mutually exclusive ideas that underlie the understanding of the purpose of criminal proceedings - for the implementation of criminal law (combating crime, organizing criminal prosecution) or for protecting the rights and freedoms of persons involved in criminal proceedings. legal proceedings. The prevalence of one of them depends on the type of process, while they cannot exist on equal terms due to the opposite methods of implementation in a particular criminal proceeding. With the priority of one of the ideas, the entire criminal process is built according to the type of designated purpose, and the second idea is one of the means of achieving it. The purpose of the criminal procedure follows from the main tasks of the state. It is concluded that in connection with the clearly established in the Constitution the basic values subject to state protection, the only purpose of the modern Russian criminal procedure is to protect human rights and freedoms, regardless of his procedural status in criminal proceedings.


2021 ◽  
pp. 231-248
Author(s):  
BORIŠA LEČIĆ

All social, political and economical progress that was made in the end of 19th century and beginning оf 20th century had a really strong consecuensed a wide reforms of processes of criminal law and criminal proceedings law by a legislation of Republic of Serbia, which showed uneficcience, inert and uneffective plan of crime prevention in practice. Practical analysis proved that it's necessary to make structural changes to pervious criminal procedure, first through the changed act of a public prosecutor, than in aplyying a simplified form of actions in his criminal cases. Effective fight against criminal, which has showing a constant trend of growth, always requiered quick, adequate and contemporary procedure and trial in short time. That was the interest of a whole society, and a defendant too. In that circumstances, principle of opportunity hac become a important instrument that requieres eficient procedure of minor crimes. Ratio legis and criminal political justification of the introduction of this principle in the criminal law of Republic of Serbia, reflected first throuht relief of courts, reduction of the number of cases and rationalization of criminal law. In this way, Republic of Serbia was followed aplyed trends of European comparative legislation, creating conditions for a new aproach of a criminal procedure in threating perpetrators of a minor crimes. The point was in a efficient, effective, and deformalised crime procedures.


Author(s):  
Svitlana Patiuк ◽  

"Definitions of categories, the goal and objectives of criminal proceedings in modern criminal proceedings" analysed the legal norms and provisions of doctrinal concepts to determine the goals and objectives of criminal proceedings. The author formulated conclusions and generalizations that since criminal proceedings are a sphere of state activity, it depends on the direction of the political course of the state, changes in state policy, which always leads to a change in the ideology of the criminal process as a whole, including the transformation of goals and objectives criminal proceedings. The purpose and objectives of criminal proceedings depend on the historical form of the criminal process, a common feature of which is the ratio of freedom (interests) of the individual and the state, expressed in the procedural position of the main participants in the process. Criminal procedure legislation and doctrine define the resolution of a dispute (conflict) between the state and the accused arising as a result of the commission of a crime as the goal of the criminal process in most countries in which the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings prevails. As the goal of criminal proceedings in the modern theory of criminal procedure, it is proposed to consider the protection of the individual, society and the state from criminal offences in the settlement of criminal-legal conflicts arising as a result of these offences. The goal in the criminal process determines the setting of tasks and represents the ultimate conclusion from the sum of all the tasks being implemented. The task of criminal proceedings should be determined taking into account the functional purpose of the subjects of criminal proceedings, and therefore the task is the fulfilment of his duty by a participant in criminal proceedings, which is determined by his functional purpose, based on the principle of competition of the parties.


Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Viktor N. Borkov

The article examines the criminal-legal aspects of the actual problem of protecting the inviolability of the individual from the unacceptable activity of state representatives in the exercise of law enforcement functions. Topical issues for theory and practice of the legal nature of the provocation of crime and the falsification of criminals remain debatable. There are no unified approaches to the qualification of provocative and inflammatory actions and cases of "throwing" objects to citizens, for the turnover of which criminal responsibility arises, there is no theoretical justification for the criminal legal status of persons provoked to commit a crime. The article shows that the qualification of common cases of provocation of crimes and falsification of criminals according to the norms providing for liability for abuse of official authority, falsification of evidence or the results of operational investigative activities should be recognized as not accurate. At the same time, responsibility for these actions committed by subjects who are not officials, and without the participation of the latter, has not been established at all. The author proposes a draft criminal law provision providing for liability for inducing to commit a crime or its staging in order to illegally create grounds for criminal prosecution. The paper questions the approach according to which a person provoked by law enforcement officers to commit a crime is not subject to criminal liability regardless of the specifics of the encroachment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document