Improvement of criminal-procedural legislation, regulating the activities of employees, establishments and bodies of the penal system

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Александр Борисович Диваев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Penal System ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной статье рассмотрен ряд вопросов совершенствования регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации. Высказаны предложения по модернизации ряда норм, устанавливающих статус органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы и их должностных лиц как органов дознания. Рассмотрен круг проблем, связанных с более четким процессуальным регулированием механизма исполнения меры пресечения в виде домашнего ареста. Даны предложения по внесению изменения в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство, которые должны содействовать более эффективной реализации полномочий по контролю за арестованными со стороны уголовно-исполнительных инспекций. Сформулировано предложение по устранению терминологической неточности, допущенной в ст. 397 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации. The article deals with a number of issues of improving the regulation of procedural powers of bodies and institutions of the penal system of the Russian Federation. In particular the proposals for the modernization of a number of rules establishing the status of the bodies and institutions of penal system, and their officials, as criminal investigation bodies. In addition, the range of problems associated with a more precise procedural regulation of the mechanism of execution of preventive measures in the form of house arrest. In this regard, proposals were made to amend the criminal procedure legislation, which should contribute to a more effective implementation of the powers to control arrested persons by the penal inspections. In conclusion, a proposal to eliminate the terminological inaccuracy in article 397 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation is formulated.

House arrest in the system of procedural preventive measures against minors (in genesis)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Tuchina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation

To implement the norms of international law into the practice of Russian legal system while choosing a preventive measure against an accused minor or a suspect, to decide on the most humane preventive measure is the issue of great importance. This position is reflected in Art. 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing the fundamental foundations of criminal procedure provisions concerning preventive measures against minors. When making a decision on restraint measures related to isolation from society, the possibility of applying an alternative, more humane preventive measure should be taken into account. The article describes the ratio of house arrest to detention. It has been justified that in the system of preventive measures house arrest should be recognized as a measure not related to isolation from society, and as a more common alternative to detention. The legislator periodically attempts to improve the procedural situation of minors involved in criminal procedure. Problems are connected with unstructured placement of norms regarding juvenile suspects and accused in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, it is linked with the absence of features of house arrest of minors. All this makes the author state that despite the large-scale judicial and legal reform, the legal regulation of preventive measures against minors needs to be further improved. The subject of the study is a scientific analysis of the sources of criminal procedure legislation on the legal regulation of house arrest in the system of preventive measures against minors. The purpose of the study is to provide scientific analysis of the features of house arrest applied to minors and to form an author’s position on this issue. Research methods cover systemic analysis, structural, logical, and comparative scientific methods. The results achieved are the analysis of the system of preventive measures against minors with the identification of the specifics of house arrest, the recognition of this measure as a preventive means not related to isolation from society, and the formation of the author’s version of the norm of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation governing this preventive step.

Features of the election of such preventive measure as house arrest in relation to minors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

In the article, the author turns to the study of the peculiarities of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not precisely define cases when a court must elect a house arrest in relation to minors, in practice there are often difficulties in which cases to choose such a preventive measure as detention, and in which house arrest. In the work, the author attempts to determine the essence of such a preventive measure as house arrest and the peculiarities of his election in relation to minors, and also considers the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which minors cannot be subjected. The positions contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the practice of the application by the courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest and bail” are analyzed. The author expresses the opinion that it is inadvisable to choose such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Based on the study, the author makes recommendations on the possibility, at the discretion of the court, to make adjustments to the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which a minor suspect or accused will be subjected to whom such a preventive measure as house arrest is chosen.

To the Matter of Procedural and Legal Problems of Detaining a Person on Suspicion of Committing a Crime

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.V. Bolshakov ◽  
◽  
I.D. Nazarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The subject of the research within the framework of the article is the criminal procedure institute for the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime. The legal nature of this institution is analyzed, and comments are given on the normative legal acts and judicial practice regulating the issues of detention. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the publications of the last two decades on this problem, in particular, reflecting the discussion of the process scientists S. A. Shafer, S. B. Rossinsky and A. A. Tarasov, the subject of which was the issue of the legal nature of a suspect detention in a criminal case. In the paper, the authors ask the following questions: What is the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation? From what moment does the detained person acquire the status of a suspect? Is it possible to detain a person before initiating a criminal case? The study concludes that a person acquires the actual status of a suspect from the moment of direct detention, that is, before documenting this status and, as a result, before initiating a criminal case. Amendments to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are proposed, and the authors` versions of the definitions of the concepts «detention of a suspect», «the moment of actual detention» and «pre-trial proceedings» are given.

scholarly journals Search in Criminal Procedure of Russia and Germany: Comparative Legal Characteristics

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 01159
Author(s):  
Anton Shamne
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences

The article compares the Criminal Procedural Codes provisions of the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany that regulate conducting a search as an investigative act. It also provides and compares the definitions of the concept “search” and “dwelling” given in Russian and German criminal procedural legislation. The reasons for conducting the search in general and the search of dwelling are considered, similarities and differences are revealed in relation to the status of the subject who is under the search. The author characterizes the search of dwelling and gives a comparative analysis of this investigative action as well as the notion of “urgent cases” in both countries. The authors also proposed some brief recommendations for improving the norms of the Russian Federation Criminal Procedure Code.

Legal and organizational bases of execution of preventive measures by criminal executive inspections

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Ольга Васильевна Коростылёва
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Organizational Issues ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation

В статье рассматриваются правовые и организационные вопросы, возникающие при исполнении мер пресечения, которые в соответствии с уголовно-процессуальным законодательством исполняют уголовно-исполнительные инспекции Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний (ФСИН России). Автор исследует исторически сложившиеся традиции исполнения мер пресечения и выявляет несоответствие в задачах, возложенных на ФСИН России, в связи с необоснованным расширением круга обязанностей сотрудников уголовно-исполнительных инспекций, вынужденных исполнять, кроме наказаний без изоляции от общества и иных мер уголовно-правового характера, еще и меры пресечения. В этой связи в теоретическом и прикладном аспектах актуальность и определенный интерес представляет статья, посвященная рассмотрению практики применения мер уголовно-процессуального принуждения уголовно-исполнительными инспекциями. Существенной новизной настоящей работы является отражение современных проблем применения следующих мер пресечения: домашний арест, запрет определенных действий, залог при возложении на подозреваемого/обвиняемого соблюдать запреты в соответствии с ч. 6 ст. 105.1 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации, основным контролирующим органом - федеральным органом исполнительной власти, осуществляющим правоприменительные функции, функции по контролю и надзору в сфере исполнения уголовных наказаний в отношении осужденных, а именно - уголовно-исполнительными инспекциями. Определяющее значение в обосновании позиции автора играет тот факт, что согласно руководящим нормативным правовым актам исполняемые сегодня уголовно-исполнительными инспекциями меры пресечения, за исключением домашнего ареста, не имеют должного законодательного закрепления. Кроме выделенных проблем, автором предложены пути их решения, которые были получены в ходе системного анализа действующего уголовно-процессуального и уголовно-исполнительного законодательства. The article deals with the legal and organizational issues that arise in the execution of preventive measures, which, in accordance with the criminal procedure legislation, are executed by the criminal Executive inspections of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia. The author examines the historical traditions of execution of preventive measures, and identifies inconsistencies in the tasks assigned to the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in connection with the unjustified expansion of the range of duties of employees of criminal Executive inspections, forced to perform, in addition to punishments without isolation from society and other measures of a criminal legal nature, also preventive measures. In this regard, in theoretical and applied aspects, the article devoted to the review of the practice of applying measures of criminal procedural coercion by criminal Executive inspections is relevant and of some interest. A significant novelty of this work is the reflection of modern problems of applying the following preventive measures: house arrest, prohibition of certain actions, bail when assigning a suspect / accused to comply with prohibitions in accordance with Pt. 6 of Art. 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the main controlling body-the Federal Executive authority that performs law enforcement functions, functions of control and supervision in the field of execution of criminal penalties against convicted persons, namely, criminal Executive inspections. The author's position is based on the fact that according to the guiding normative legal acts, the preventive measures implemented by the criminal Executive inspections today, with the exception of house arrest, do not have a proper legislative basis. In addition to the identified problems, the author suggests ways to solve them, which were obtained in the course of a systematic analysis of the current criminal procedure and criminal enforcement legislation.

scholarly journals Real Served Term in Case of Parole: Problems of Determination

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Руслан Долотов ◽  
Ruslan Dolotov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the practice of parole. The main goal of the study is to determine if is it properly to include a period of house arrest in six months term of imprisonment, necessary for the creation of the right to parole. The article proves that in practice they judge from the following conclusion: as the period of house arrest is included in the period of detention, and the detention period is included in the term of imprisonment, so when a real served term for parole is determined it is necessary to include in it the period of house arrest. The author explains that such conclusion is flawed since it is based on a dogmatic rather than systemic interpretation of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation without understanding the role which plays set by the legislator six months term in case of parole in the system of criminal law measures.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ISSUES OF THE STATUS OF A PRIEST AS A PARTICIPANT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-195
Author(s):  
Sergey V. BOLOTIN ◽  
Natalia V. SIDOROVA
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Terra Incognita ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Definition Of

The article is devoted to one of the undefined terms used in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation — “priest”. The relevance and novelty of this study is due to the fact that, in practice, this issue is terra incognita not only in the science of criminal procedure, but also in related scientific disciplines. The purpose of the current work is to try to identify approaches to defining the content and essential features of this concept. The article presents historical and factual moments that reveal the essence of the main carriers of religious functions on the example of four confessions operating in Russia. On the basis of comparative, etymological, logical methods of analysis of the powers and appointment of various representatives of the main religions in Russia, the authors make such conclusion that it is impossible to use the term “priest” in an equal sense for all the studied confessions. The authors of this article also propose a definition of the investigated term in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as well as determine the corresponding body of the Government of Russia, which could be entrusted with the responsibility of officially interpreting the terminology on this issue.

scholarly journals Modernization of Bail as a Component of Criminal Procedure Restraint in Russia and Abroad

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-475
Author(s):  
Alsu Petrukhina ◽  
Vera Popova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Model ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

Measures of criminal procedure compulsion should, in the first place, ensure the enforcement of criminal procedure on a criminal case, i.e. prevent the suspect or the accused person from going into hiding, committing a new crime, continuing criminal activities, influencing in any way other participants of the criminal process or the proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation foresees bail as one of preventive measure alternative to detention. Bail is not often used in the Russian Federation. According to statistical data from the Court Department of the Supreme Court for the last five years, the number of bails in Russia is negligibly small compared to other preventive measures. On April 18, 2018, the federal law № 72-ФЗ was enacted to change this situation; it did not only introduce changes in the existing preventive measures, but added a new measure prohibiting the performance of certain actions. Such a component of the restriction measure under consideration as the object of bail was examined for the first time in the light of a radical renewal of the existing legal model through the development of an alternative, principally new concept based on the economic interests of the subject of criminal procedure relations which borrowed its key features from the institutes of civil and financial law. It is difficult to notice the impact of this improvement in practice. When bail was chosen as a restrictive measure, the number of cases not only stayed at the same level, but even went down. Due to this, it is relevant to research an opportunity of combining bail with the preventive measure of prohibiting certain actions. A comprehensive research of bail in Russian and foreign law allowed the authors to formulate recommendations on possible improvements in the mechanism of legal regulation of bail in modern criminal court procedure. It is suggested that a number of gaps in legislation should be bridged, specifically, the list of goals of bail included in the law should be changed and the existing goal of preventing new crimes should be supplemented by the following phrase: «Preventing the accused (the suspect) from continuing the crime that began earlier or committing a new crime». It is also suggested that Part 2.1 should be introduced in Art. 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which will make it possible to use bail to compensate for the material damage inflicted by the crime in case of a guilty verdict. The authors believe that it is necessary to improve the effectiveness of such a preventive measure as bail in the Russian Federation, thus reducing the number of cases when incarceration was chosen as a restriction measure for crimes of small and medium gravity.

scholarly journals The problematic issues of the participation of the prosecutor in the consideration by the court of the petition of the investigator to elect a preventive measure

2019 ◽  
pp. 247-250
Author(s):  
Ol'ga A. Teterina ◽  
Andrey A. Metyolkin ◽  
Kristina A. Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to a detailed study of the participation of the prosecutor in the court’s consideration of the investigator’s petition on the choice of preventive measures. The article analyses the positions of scientists and practitioners on this issue. Based on the analysis of legal literature and Russian criminal procedural legislation, the authors assessed the role of the prosecutor and identifi ed the problems of his participation in the court’s consideration of the investigator’s petitions on the choice of a preventive measure. It is especially noted that a dispute between the prosecutor and the investigator is unacceptable when the court considers the investigator's petition. The authors propose to return to the prosecutor the right to give consent to the investigator to initiate a relevant petition before the court, and also to make the prosecutor’s refusal to support the petition mandatory for the court. The article also formulates the amendments that are proposed to be made to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document