Role of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court in the judicial practice formation

The subject. The article considers the role of the Plenum of Russian Supreme in forming judicial practice on the example of giving qualification to the crimes committed against sexual freedom and inviolability, as well as against property and public health.The objective of the article is to conduct a complex analysis of the function of the decisions, taken by the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court, in the formation of a unified vector of judicial practice. The authors dare to refute the hypothesis hat judicial practice can be recognized as a source of law.The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical theory of development and interrelation of phenomena. Historical, formal-logical, systematic methods of knowledge have been identified as relevant to the topic of the study.The main results, scope of application. The authors draw attention to the problem of evaluative features used in the process of law enforcement when interpreting the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A norm with such signs acquires an unformalized essence from the point of view of the boundaries of criminalization of a particular phenomenon. On the other hand, the nature of crimes is so diverse that without the flexibility of criminal law regulation (allowing the use of evaluative features), the application of the norm taking into account specific circumstances in a particular case may not be possible. The authors also consider issues related to the characteristics of the objective side, the end time of these crimes, the application of the formula of a single ongoing crime and its separation from related compounds. The process of law enforcement is based on such guidelines as the norms of law, judicial discretion, established judicial practice, the position of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court. Attributing an explanatory role to the decisions of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court does not completely eliminate the shortcomings inherent in legal technology. Correcting the current situation with the help of judicial discretion is not always justified, since this is possible only if there is a legitimate alternative. Assigning the status of a precedent to a judicial decision may lead to the substitution of the law by decisions taken in a particular case.Conclusions. The judicial practice concerning these issues is completely different. Despite the existence of similar situations, courts, as a rule, qualify an offense using various norms of the law, which negatively affects compliance with the principle of legality. The issue related to the function of the decisions of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court in the formation of a single vector of judicial practice has been and remains debatable. The continued addition of new articles to criminal legislation, on the one hand, indicates the desire of the legislator to bring it to perfection, but, on the other hand, forms a mechanism for clarifying the rules of its application, which sometimes leads to their contradictory interpretation. At the same time, crime and punishment should be determined only by legislation.

Moving Along the Continuum of Loyalty From a Standard Towards Rules

This article focuses on the location of the duty of loyalty—a unique legal norm in Common Law jurisdictions—both actual and desirable, on the continuum between rules and standards. A rule is a relatively ‘closed’ technical norm, at a high level of specificity; it requires little judicial discretion. A standard is an ‘open’ norm, with a greater degree of flexibility, that requires the exercise of discretion. The insights from this jurisprudential perspective are used to reveal the preferred way for further developing the duty of loyalty. The article explains that ‘loyalty,’ intuitively classified as a ‘pure’ standard, has been reconstructed over time as more specific rules. Moreover, it suggests that, ideally, this movement should continue; namely, when applying loyalty to a specific case, courts should include informative content that would promote predictability. It then illustrates that, unfortunately, this road is not always taken by the courts. A decision to retain loyalty as an ad hoc standard, or an inverse attempt to delineate the boundaries of this norm, has implications on the certainty, consistency, and ethical content of the law. Considering that this duty spreads across different legal fields, personal and commercial, the significance of this discussion becomes all the more evident.

KEADILAN BAGI PENYALAHGUNA NARKOTIKA DI INDONESIA

This article presents the perceptions of Indonesian Judges in sentencing minor drug offenders. The judge holds a central role in the sentencing process, and because of the judicial discretion they can use it is essential to understand how judges come to their sentencing decisions. To develop an understanding of how judges perceive their actions in decision-making and sentencing of drug users, a total of 31 participants were interviewed. The data demonstrated that justice is presented as conditional, depending on various influencing factors that are primarily, though not entirely, one of tension and contradiction. One of the factors that influence the judge's decision is politics and the legal apparatus. This article contributes to the perception of judges who are influenced by juridical and sociological factors.

Parent-to-Child Violence: Does Gender Matter in Sentencing Decisions?

The purpose was to examine gender differences (a) in the sentencing severity for parent-to-child violence (PCV); and (b) in severity of PCV patterns. We analyzed 99 verdict cases in Israel. Two models, a logistic regression model and a generalized ordered logistic regression model, were applied. The findings of the first model indicated that being a woman reduced the odds of imprisonment by .106; furthermore, being tried after implementation of the 2012 reform in judicial discretion in sentencing significantly increased the odds of sentence severity by 2.85. The second model indicated that women had lower odds of being involved in severe violent offenses against their minor children compared with men ( OR = 0.31). The findings highlight the source of sentencing differentials.

Criminal Law Sanctions and the Practice of Their Implementation in Counteracting Some Crimes of Corruption

When analyzing the problem of counteracting crimes with a corruption component, specialists single out different areas: criminological, victimological, criminal prevention, organizational-management, etc. The authors of the article focus on such criminal law area as the application of criminal law sanctions and their effectiveness in counteracting some most common types of crimes of corruption. This topic is of much interest because the introduction of amendments into criminal legislation in 2003–2011 and later years that eliminated the minimum punishment of incarceration or fine for a considerable number of norms, the lack of coordination between specific types of punishment, and a number of other factors created conditions for a rather wide and often unjustified use of judicial discretion when determining punishment for crimes of corruption, which led both the research community and the practicing lawyers to believe that the criminal law itself contains a corruption component. The abovementioned factors, together with the task of liberalizing criminal legislation on economic crimes set by the country’s leadership, demand a simultaneous improvement of the effectiveness of criminal law measures used for the category of unlawful actions under discussion. Taking into consideration the analysis of criminal law sanctions for specific types of crimes of corruption, the existing court practice of awarding criminal sentences for them, and the statistical data of the Court Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to draw attention of court authorities and lawmakers to the existing problems both in the legislative content of criminal law sanctions and in their implementation; their essence is outlined in the current article. The choice of the types of crimes of corruption, the criminal law sanctions for which are analyzed in the article, is not accidental and is justified by their prevalence in the practice of law enforcement.

"Any evidence" in the Family Court

<p>This dissertation examines the origins and justification for the “any evidence” rule which has been a feature of New Zealand family law for many years. The rule provides judicial discretion to admit evidence in the Family Court which would be otherwise inadmissible. Its ongoing value has never been closely examined, although the rule has frequently been criticised. Selected cases have been examined to determine if reliance on the Evidence Act without the “any evidence” rule would have the deleterious outcomes contemplated. Analysis has shown that the rule has very little use and conversely, that the detriment caused by the rule is greater than the harm it was designed to remedy. Repeal and reform options are considered to better achieve the specific purposes of the various family law statutes as well as improve the integrity of the Family Court process overall.</p>

"Any evidence" in the Family Court

<p>This dissertation examines the origins and justification for the “any evidence” rule which has been a feature of New Zealand family law for many years. The rule provides judicial discretion to admit evidence in the Family Court which would be otherwise inadmissible. Its ongoing value has never been closely examined, although the rule has frequently been criticised. Selected cases have been examined to determine if reliance on the Evidence Act without the “any evidence” rule would have the deleterious outcomes contemplated. Analysis has shown that the rule has very little use and conversely, that the detriment caused by the rule is greater than the harm it was designed to remedy. Repeal and reform options are considered to better achieve the specific purposes of the various family law statutes as well as improve the integrity of the Family Court process overall.</p>

Fundamental Rights Seen Through the “Pluralistic Interpretive Box”

Interpretation, or the judicial understanding of the legal acts in the process of protection of the human rights, is becoming increasingly interesting and controversial, both from an aspect of the applied interpretation technique (which interpretation method is applied by the judge in a specific case and why), as well as from an aspect of the legal opportunism/legitimacy of the interpretation. It is a fact that so far, neither the European, nor the national legal theories and practice have offered coordinated systematic approach regarding the application of the legal interpretation methods, which often leads to different interpretation of the legal norms by the national and the European courts when applied in similar or identical legal situations for protection of the human rights. It is considered that the different interpretation of the legal documents by the judges endangers the protection of the human rights, but also the legal security of the citizens. Judicial discretion in choosing an interpretive method in a particular case by the national, or by the courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg further complicates the already complex procedure of protection of human rights, which directly creates new problems instead of solving the existing ones. The "pluralistic interpretive box" is continuously filled with new and new cases from different approaches by different courts in the process of protection of human rights, which leads to increased scientific interest for a more detailed consideration of this issue. The growing scientific interest in the impact of the legal interpretation on the (non) equality of the human rights protection is the main reason for writing this paper, in which I will try to explain the connection between the three different, but still related issues encountered in the multilevel system of human rights protection in Europe. The first issue addressed in the paper concerns the most common methods of legal interpretation applied in the national and European court proceedings. The second issue concerns the search for a consistent answer to whether and how much legitimacy and legality the court decisions made by applying judicial discretion have when the interpretive method in judicial decision-making is chosen, and the third issue refers to finding an answer to the impact of such court decisions on the functionality and efficiency of the multi-level system of protection of human rights, that is, to what extent such court decisions have a positive or negative effect on the human rights protection. Given that each national court has its own instruments and techniques of interpretation by which the judges make their decisions, the need to study their causality and effectiveness is more than evident.

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?

<p>One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This paper will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the paper will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.</p>

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?

<p>One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This paper will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the paper will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.</p>