The age psychology of minors as a factor determining the features of the preliminary investigation of criminal cases involving them

The age psychology of minors is considered as a factor determining the features of the preliminary investigation of criminal cases involving them. The article deals with issues related to the age psychology of minors, the object of which are the laws, patterns and trends of change in the human psyche, his behavior, life and personality throughout his life. At the same time, it is noted in the legal literature that most crimes committed by minors are due to age-related motivational specifics, committed on the basis of mischief, a misinterpreted sense of camaraderie and romance, the desire for self-affirmation, imitation of both adults and peers who enjoy authority. The behavioral basis of juvenile offenders is formed under the influence of a number of factors, knowledge of which can be important when making tactical and procedural decisions by an investigator during pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case. The behavior of adolescents is largely related to their age characteristics, which largely determine their behavior, which can be observed, including during the preliminary investigation of criminal cases involving them. Thus, knowledge of the peculiarities of age psychology can make it possible to determine the most effective measures of educational work aimed at correcting behavior, correcting and re-educating juvenile offenders. It is these goals that the legislator takes into account, establishing the specifics of the proceedings both in cases of crimes committed by minors and the regulation of investigative actions involving minor victims and witnesses. The peculiarities of the age psychology of minors must also be taken into account when choosing the tactics of investigative actions carried out with their participation, since this is one of the necessary conditions for achieving the goal of the investigative action and the preliminary investigation as a whole.

Promotion of Justice as an Independent Criminal Procedure Function

The article proves the necessity of involving the persons assisting the parties and the Court into criminal proceedings. The author analyzes the promotion of justice as an independent criminal procedure function under Chapter 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which is carried out by both the participants of criminal proceedings and by other subjects of criminal law relations who do not have an independent procedural status. The conducted social and legal analysis made it possible to state that the development of the idea of the rule of law requires individuals to obtain a correct understanding of the organization of the modern society, its development trends, and the necessity of acquiring due legal awareness. The understanding of legal awareness varied throughout the history of our state but what remained unchanged were the ideas that it can be influenced and that it determines the development of law and the law enforcement itself. Citizens with the due level of legal awareness are ready to promote justice, which testifies to their high level of social development, a desire to be involved in law enforcement work, to bring justice and ensure legality of procedural decisions. The author shows that criminal proceedings in Russia require facilitation, but the majority of people are not ready to provide it for a number of reasons, which proves the need for a detailed analysis of promoting justice in the modern Russian criminal process. The conducted research stresses the theoretical and practical inadequacy of the three-part system of criminal procedure functions enshrined in the current Russian criminal procedure legislation. The author examines the possibility of singling out the promotion of justice as an independent criminal procedure institute necessary for making lawful, well-grounded and comprehensive procedural decisions by officials and state bodies. The author concludes that it is necessary to introduce changes in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federations which will foresee the possibility of renaming Chapter 8 of the Code. Besides, having analyzed the concept of «justice», the author presents his position of what should be understood as the promotion of justice.

The weight of criminal judicial evidence

The study is devoted to the current issue of the weight of criminal judicial evidence, which is understudied in the national doctrine. The legislator, having introduced this evaluative concept in 2012 (Paragraph 1, Part 11, Article 1 of 178 CCP), did not provide its normative definition. As a result, there is a conceptual uncertainty, which is inappropriate given the requirements of the rule of law (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 8 of the CCP). Therefore, the purpose of study is to attempt to formulate a definition of the “weight of evidence”, to propose a scheme of work of a lawyer to determine the signs of this activity phenomenon in situations of making appropriate procedural decisions. The study is based on the activity methodology using a number of special methods – search and bibliographic; semantic; Aristotelian; hermeneutic; historical-legal; comparative-legal; functional analysis; generalisation. The study formulated the definition of the “weight of evidence” as an activity characteristic. The latter is the result of a pragmatic logical and legal evaluation of ad hoc evidence within its totality. Thus, certain evidence is prioritised due to the greater suitability attributed to it by the lawyer to serve as a convincing evidence base of the procedural decision. Therefore, the conclusion is substantiated that the “weight of available evidence” as its activity characteristic is “the fifth element” of the structure of “criminal judicial evidence” along with such characteristics as “credibility”, “admissibility”, “reliability”, and “sufficiency”. The study includes conclusion that the introduction by the legislator in 2012 of the “weight of available evidence” meets the requirements of the evidentiary practice of the modern national adversarial process and the ECHR

The revision of separate requirements for the position of investigator

Issues and problems in the field of organization and activities of the preliminary investigation bodies in terms of implementation of the legal status of the investigator, as well as ways for their resolution are constantly in the focus of lawyers. The current state concept for training investigative personnel along with the system of qualification requirements for the position of an investigator of the Investigative Committee of Russia (hereinafter - the IC of Russia) have serious shortcomings. The fact is that there are no interrelated educational stages for a candidate for this job; there is neither any mandatory requirement for practical experience and career ladder in this field. As a result, a large number of investigators serving in the Investigative Committee of Russia simply do not have reasonable qualification and, accordingly, are not prepared for investigative work, which ultimately leads to a general decrease in the quality and effectiveness of preliminary investigation. This is absolutely unacceptable for a developed democratic and law-governed state. Lacking relevant practical experience and task-oeirented training, novice investigators are trusted to make important procedural decisions that significantly affect the life of a particular person. In this regard, a properly developed state concept, as well as a system of qualification requirements for the position of an investigator, including interrelated stages of its achievement, will contribute to the formation of highly qualified and trained investigative personnel that will favourably effect the entire preliminary investigation service.

Legal and linguistic uncertainty of terms and norms of Russian laws

The article presents the results of a study of de jure (modeled) and de facto (real) interpretation of the concept legal and linguistic uncertainty, which is relevant for modern Russian legal discourse, lawmaking, judicial, and expert practice. These features are typical for Russian legal discourse, lawmaking, judicial, expert practice, as well as the scientific sphere of communication. The article is aimed at studying the objective and subjective reasons for legal and linguistic uncertainty of legislative terms and legislative norms; analysing the conditions under which uncertainty is considered as an attribute of law language and a means of legal regulation or a defective formulating legal rules, falsa leclio. Legal and linguistic uncertainty is considered from different points of view: (a) the dichotomy clarity/ uncertainty; (b) the legislative definition; (c) attitude to the system of Russian legislation terms; (d) variability, disambiguate, double-meaning; (e) the basis for procedural decisions (expert assessment, adjustment of the norm of the draft law or the current law, rejection of the draft law). The subjective factors of legal and linguistic uncertainty are analyzed, on the one hand, from the position of professional competencies of law developers and specialists examining laws in different aspects - linguistic, legal, anti-corruption, legal and technical, pedagogical, etc. On the other hand, they are analysed from the point of view of legal and other knowledge of the addressees, those, who interpret the law. The research methodology is traditional for modern Russian studies and legal linguistics: analysis, comparison, deduction, induction, analogy, modeling, as well as contextual, interpretive, systemic, discursive, interdisciplinary, practice-oriented and other approaches. Due to interdisciplinary nature of the research, works on linguistics, jurisprudence, legal linguistics, documents of legislative, judicial, expert practice, texts of Russian (federal) laws, materials from the Dictionary of Terms of Russian Legislation were used. The prospects for the study are outlined: considering legal and linguistic uncertainty in the aspect of creating laws in two or more state languages, orthology, etc.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF ELECTRONIC CRIMINAL CASE INTRODUCTION

The article discusses both positive and negative aspects of the development of such a phenomenon as an electronic criminal case. It is noted that, taking into account the general digitalization of society, criminal proceedings in the future will undergo significant changes. This will be facilitated by the widespread introduction of electronic document management, remote forms of investigative and judicial actions, the use of algorithms and mathematical calculations in making procedural decisions, the use of robotics. Much will depend on the successful solution of problems related to ensuring information security, protecting the legal rights and freedoms of citizens, as well as the interests of society and the state.Keywords:electronic criminal case, information technology, criminal procedure, algorithms, robotics

Administrative-Procedural Form and Stages as Elements of the Characteristics of the Administrative Process

The subject of research in this paper is the administrative-procedural form and stages of the administrative process. The purpose of the study is to analyze the essential characteristics of the administrative-procedural form and stages. It is stated that the evolution of the administrative process and administrative-procedural legal relations entailed changes in the administrative-procedural form, which were influenced by changes in the political system and the system of public administration in the Russian Federation. It is concluded that the improvement of the administrative process and its form ensures compliance with both the interests of the state and society, as well as the rights and legitimate interests of citizens. Attention is drawn to the fact that one of the characteristic features of administrative-procedural legal relations that distinguish it from other types of procedural legal relations – arbitration, civil, criminal, constitutional, is the administrative-procedural form, which is characterized by out-of-court, pre-trial and judicial procedures of proceedings in an administrative case, due to the specifics and features of its subject. The author notes that the administrative-procedural form is an external expression of administrative-procedural activity, and the stages are its internal content. At the same time, the stages of the administrative process are separate, but interrelated stages consisting of administrative procedural actions united by common tasks and intermediate and final administrative procedural decisions, procedural deadlines. Attention is drawn to a certain specificity of the stages of the administrative process, which consists in the fact that they cannot be clearly divided into judicial and pre-trial stages, as it is in the criminal process. The system of stages of the administrative process should be the same for all types of administrative proceedings, since this follows from the principle of self-similarity, when the particular comes from the general and corresponds to it. To determine the place of administrative judicial procedure in the administrative process, it is necessary to understand that the court, as a subject of administrative procedural legal relations, can enter into the process at different stages, and it is not the only subject of administrative procedural relations that makes legally significant procedural decisions. The methodological basis of the article is dialectical, formal-logical methods, formal-legal method and method of interpretation of law.

On the issue of evidence and proof in criminal proceedings

The article deals with the concept and essence of evidence in criminal cases. The correlation between the concepts of any information and actual data is analyzed in order to define the concept of evidence in criminal cases. The purpose of using evidence in criminal cases is justified. The article concludes that it is necessary to substantiate any procedural decisions with relevant, acceptable and reliable evidence.

Discussion on the Properties of Relevance, Admissibility and Reliability of Criminal Procedural Evidence

The paper analyzes the legislative definition of criminal procedural evidence. The author gives critical assessment of replacement of the phrase “any factual data” from the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR with the phrase “any information” in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The wording under consideration gave rise to the possibility for some authors to conclude that the law does not indicate the factual nature of information claiming the status of evidence. The main attention is paid to the question of the necessary properties of proofs. The paper points to the erroneous perception by some researchers of the content of Art. 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which manifests itself in endowing the properties of relevance, admissibility and reliability with the status of criteria for evaluating evidence. According to the author, relevance, admissibility and reliability are not criteria for evaluating evidence, but information obtained in the course of proving for the possibility of using it as evidence. The criteria for evaluating the evidence are specified in Part 1 of Art. 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation—the law and the conscience of an authorized person who evaluates evidence according to his inner conviction. In contrast to the opinion of researchers who believe that the necessary properties of evidence include only relevance and admissibility, the author argues that each evidence must also have the property of reliability. Only in the presence of the entire set of necessary properties, the information obtained in the course of proving can be endowed with the status of evidence.The author demonstrates that each of the necessary properties of a proof has an independent content and meaning. Therefore, their confusion is unacceptable. It is concluded that relevance, admissibility and reliability should form the basis for all procedural decisions concerning evidence. According to the author, a clear understanding of the content of these properties would be facilitated by the consolidation of the definitions of these categories in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. It is also advisable to edit Part 1 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by means of defining the concept for criminal procedural evidence as "any factual information" and indicating the purpose of obtaining them as "for the correct resolution of the case".

Effectiveness standards for investigation of corruption crimes: Theory and practice

The article deals with development of a doctrinal system of effectiveness standards for the investigation of corruption crimes. The study used a number of philosophical, general scientific and specific methods of gaining scientific knowledge, including: dialectical method, hermeneutic method, method of systemic and structural analysis, methods of analysis and synthesis, functional method, formal legal method and modeling method. It is proposed to define the investigation effectiveness as the feature of pre-trial investigation, which is characterized by the ability to achieve the tasks envisioned in Art. 2 of the CPC of Ukraine (Law No. 4651-VI, 2012) and can be assessed by checking the number of objectively necessary procedural actions and the effectiveness of making intermediate and final procedural decisions. It is emphasized that the general standards of investigation effectiveness, formulated by the case law of the ECHR, are partially taken into account in Art. 2 of the CPC of Ukraine (Law No. 4651-VI, 2012) through stating the need of investigation being efficient, complete and impartial. The authors formulate scientific approaches to determining the main criteria for the effectiveness of pre-trial investigation of corruption crimes.