Criminal procedural functions: problematic issues in the definition of concepts

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 94-97
Author(s):  
Тарлан Мухтадыр оглы Гамидов ◽  

The article is devoted to the study of such a problematic issue of the domestic science of the criminal process as, the definition of the concept of criminal procedural functions. The author of the article analyzes the concepts of procedural functions available in the theory of the concept, classifying them within the framework of four approaches. On the basis of the analysis of each approach, the author proposes his own notion of criminal procedural functions and their characteristics. Key words:function, criminal procedural function, criminal proceeding, competitiveness, criminal procedure activity

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 104-110
Author(s):  
A.G. Trofimik ◽  

The research of the German criminal process reveals the main theoretical characteristics of theory of miscarriages of justice in German criminal procedure. The essential aspects of the doctrine of erroneous judgment are established. The conclusion about the significance of the doctrine of erroneous judgment for the modern theory of miscarriages of justice in Germany is formulated. Based on a comprehensive research of original German sources, the main provisions of the doctrine of erroneous judgment and the modern theory of miscarriages of justice in Germany are enunciated. The influence of discursive philosophy on theoretical ideas about criminal proceedings is established. The immediate practical applicability of these theories is rather low. In the author’s opinion, their importance, among other things, is that the problematics of miscarriages of justice in Germany are closely related to the concept of truth in criminal proceedings, which is uncharacteristically of Russian research in the designated area. Based on the analysis of German doctrine, the significance of theoretical provisions for establishing the truth in a criminal procedure is determined. A pragmatic, utilitarian German approach to the legislative formulation of truth in criminal proceedings is represented. The legislative recognition and interpretation of the truth in criminal proceedings are expressed. The correlation between the theoretical provisions on material truth and the theory of miscarriages of justice is confirmed. As the result of the research the functional meaning of truth for the theory and practice of criminal proceedings in Germany is enunciated. In addition, the German theoretic definition of the concept of «miscarriage of justice» is given. Characteristic of this concept are identified. The significance of the scientific conclusions of this article consists in determining the fundamental suitability of German dogma and theory for a comparative legal research of miscarriages of justice in Russia and Germany.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 308-315
Author(s):  
K. Smanaliev

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of changes in the model of criminal proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic and the definition of ‘criminal proceedings’ is given in a new edition. It has been established that pre-trial proceedings as a stage in the criminal process; begins with the registration of statements and messages and is the initial independent stage of the criminal process, manifesting in two forms: investigation and proceedings on misdemeanor cases. It was confirmed that the refusal from the stage of initiating a criminal case was replaced by a new institute of the Unified Register of Crimes and Misdemeanors, which includes a process starting from the moment of electronic registration and a system for recording applications and messages, and ending with the execution of a court sentence. The object of the research is public relations associated with the reform and digitalization of pre-trial proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic. The subject of the research is the novelties of the criminal procedure legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic regarding pre-trial proceedings. In connection with the latest legislative reforms and digitalization in Kyrgyzstan, a comparative analysis of the state of the criminal procedure legislation of a number of post-Soviet states (Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova) on issues related to the electronic system of the unified register of crimes and misconduct seems relevant to the author.


2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Roclawska ◽  
Adam Bulat

Abstract In September 2013, the Polish Parliament passed an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislators decided to expand a number of adversarial elements present in current Polish criminal proceedings. When these changes come into effect (July 1, 2015), Polish criminal procedure will be similar to American regulations, in which the judge’s role is to be an impartial arbitrator, not an investigator. The authors of the article describe the meaning of the principle of adversarial trial in Poland. They also emphasized relations between this principle and the concept of “material truth”. The changes established by the amendment are shown in perspective of the American definition of adversarial trial. The authors analyze the reform and attempt to predict the problems with new regulations in practice.


Author(s):  
V.V. Djafarov ◽  

The article considers problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in the criminal process. The author’s views are based on recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the existing experience of the Russian Federation. The article focuses on provisions of the current criminal procedure code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The author refers to Russian proceduralists whose works are devoted to the problems of studying the validity of procedural decisions at the pre-trial stage. The author indicated types of decisions, which are not recognized as criminal procedural, but for which justification should be a mandatory criterion according to the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The article provisions justify the need to enshrine the definition of «reasonableness» in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a mandatory requirement that must be met when taking decisions by the prosecuting authorities.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ihor Rohatiuk

Principles have always been the cornerstones of criminal proceedings’ legal regulation affecting all participants of criminal process. Taking into account the accelerated pace of current law enforcement reforming it is necessary to mention the prosecution institute and key role of criminal proceedings’ principles presenting scientific background for further empirical findings. The majority of these principles defines the priority growth directions of criminal process as well as creates friendly environment for behavioral aspects of criminal proceeding parties. This article provides comparative analysis of the existing criminal procedural principles of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal proceedings with specification of the legality principle as a requirement for all subjects of the criminal proceedings, including the prosecutor, to use the norms and provisions of legal acts correctly, to comply it consistently and perform accurately, explores the historical origins of these principles and their determinants’ origin starting from the times of Kievan Rus and its unique judicial system and proves that the adversarial principle is closely connected with dispositivity of prosecutor’s participation in criminal proceeding. An emphasis is placed on correlation between the ‘principles’ and ‘foundations’ terms examined by Ukrainian and Soviet scholars and its application in relation to the newly adopted Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.


Author(s):  
Artem Kolichenko

The presence of terminological disunity in the doctrine of criminal procedure in the definition of the term “electronic evidence” leads to misunderstanding or even misunderstanding of the essence and purpose of the designated phenomenon. Thus, the purpose of the article is to develop the term «electronic evidence» based on the existing doctrinal provisions. In addition, this article attempts to consolidate the existing knowledge about the term “electronic evidence”, its future and present for the modern criminal process. The author emphasizes the impossibility of formulating a legal norm related to electronic evidence without a specific and clear concept.


2019 ◽  
pp. 184-189
Author(s):  
O. V. Andrushko

The article deals with the problems of improving the regulatory legal regulation of criminal procedural liability for offenses in the criminal process. In the article the initial theoretical characteristics of criminal procedural liability and the system of its actions are given. The tendencies of development of normative-legal regulation of criminal procedural responsibility are determined: clarification and consolidation of procedural obligations of process participants; extension of the list of participants in criminal proceedings to which its actions may be applied; clarification of certain legal procedures; definition of new syllables of criminal procedural offenses; improvement of legal responsibility of subjects of the criminal process, endowed with powers of authority. In order to unify all types of proceedings, it is proposed to supplement the criminal procedural legislation with the article "Separate decree (decree) of the court (judge, investigating judge)". It is stated that the main criterion for distinguishing between types of responsibility is the degree of social danger of a procedural offense. Composition of procedural offenses should be specified in a separate normative-legal act: the Code of procedural offenses, as well as the types of legal liability for their commission. The imposition of a monetary fine on violators of the court order (and in other offenses) will lead to thesearch for ways to eliminate the conflict between procedural "money collection" and an administrative "fine". With the variation of the solution to this and other conflicts, the advantage in regulatory-legal regulation should be given to measures of procedural liability. Prospects for improving the legal regulation of criminal procedural liability are seen in strengthening its role in strengthening the effectiveness and legality of criminal proceedings by strengthening its punitive and legal influence. Accordingly, we have supported separate scientific proposals to improve the legislation and some are proposed independently.


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (82) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Inese Baikovska

It is presumed that no appeal may lie from a judgment that has already entered into legal force and such a judgment is regarded as final in a case, criminal proceedings may still be reopened under certain legal circumstances, which are called newly discovered. This is how the right of persons involved in criminal proceedings to a fair trial and a fair final judgment is ensured.The goal of this article is to examine circumstances that can be recognised as newly discovered and serve as grounds for the reopening of criminal proceedings, identify problems related to legal framework and find a legally sound solution. The tasks of this article are to investigate provisions applied to newly discovered circumstances as defined by the Criminal Procedure Law. As a result of the research, the author has concluded that the Latvian legislation governing criminal procedure with respect to the definition of newly discovered circumstances is deficient; therefore, suggestions are provided for the improvement of the existing legal framework. The research is based on the analysis of legislation, judgments of courts, conclusions and separate opinions of judges.


Author(s):  
Y. Voitovych

The article considers the peculiarities of the legislative regulation of the institution of judicial control in the criminal process of Ukraine. The authors who paid attention to the research of this institute of criminal procedural legislation, the purpose of the research are determined. In particular, as a result, the definition of judicial control as an independent institution of procedural law has been clarified, taking into account both recent changes in procedural legislation and taking into account current changes. It is pointed out the imperfection of certain terms of the procedural law, which, among other things, affect the content of the institution of judicial control. The inconsistency of the content of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the principles that preceded its adoption was emphasized. A gap in the procedural law has been identified, which consists in the lack of regulation of the actions of officials of the prosecution in the event of a court decision such as returning the indictment to the prosecutor as not meeting the requirements of the law. A comparative analysis of the criminal procedural norms that regulated the institution of additional investigation during the CPC of the USSR, with the rules that give the court the right to return the indictment to the prosecutor as one that does not meet the requirements of the law. The procedural powers of the investigating judge outside the stage of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings have been defined, and their inadequacy to restore the constitutional rights of a person, which could potentially be violated, has been criticized. The constitutional prescriptions that define human and civil rights are analyzed, their implementation is assessed in terms of the problem covered; It is concluded that the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law do not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular, attention is focused on the possibility of restricting the constitutional rights of a person in the absence of an effective mechanism for their renewal. The conclusion was made on the basis of the analysis of constitutional norms and doctrine of law with regard to the definition of justice. Certain provisions of the law have been criticized, and suggestions for their improvement have been made. As a result, it is proposed to define judicial control as a direct verification by an investigating judge of the legality and validity of decisions, actions or omissions of the prosecution and other state bodies in criminal proceedings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document