The fundamental importance of the ban on turning for the worse for the criminal procedure system

Author:

Vanyan K. D.1ORCID,Lysov N. N.1ORCID,Tashilin M. T.1ORCID,Shuisky A. S.1ORCID,Gilmanov I. R.1ORCID,Kosterin V. V.1

Affiliation:

1. Pyatigorsk Institute (branch) of the North-Caucasus Federal University

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of the expediency of a criminal case’s returning to the prosecutor at the stage of appointment and preparation of a court session in Russian criminal proceedings. This problem is relevant to the science of criminal procedure.The purpose of the study is to analyze critically the practice of returning of a criminal case back to the prosecutor in order to correct mistakes made at the pre-trial stages of the proceedings according to the new concept of justice independence and the absence of an accusatory bias in the court functioning.The methodological basis of the study is a set of scientific techniques, focused mostly on the dialectical approach, which made it possible to determine the essential characteristics of the prohibition to turn the criminal proceedings in Russia for the worse. Both general scientific (analysis, synthesis, systematic method) and specific scientific methods (formal-legal, historical-legal, comparative-legal) of knowledge were also used. The analysis helped to formulate the position of understanding the turn for the worse as an independent principle of criminal procedural law, to study the procedural form of the turn for the worse. The synthesis method made it possible to determine the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor at the stage of appointment and preparation of the court session as a holistic institution of the criminal procedure. The systematic approach allowed to determine not only the mixed nature of the mechanism for changing the prosecution to a more serious one, but the investigative organization of pre-trial proceedings and its place in the structure of criminal proceedings, the separation of the investigative and “accusatory powers” of the prosecutors as well as their balance. The historical method let us trace the evolution of the prohibition to turn the Soviet and Russian criminal procedural systems for the worse. The comparative-legal method made it possible to assess the potential of domestic legislators' reception of foreign experience of regulating the prohibition to turn for the worse and formulate proposals to improve the Russian criminal procedural legislation.The main scientific results of this research consist of justification of the conclusion of the conversion expediency of the domestic judicial proceedings to the adversarial model of accusation which is carried out within the trial on the previously filed charge. The presentation of a new charge (criminal action) in court and the procedure of supplementing the charge change it for the worse. This model of re-indictment for the worse for the defendant appears to be fairer and more convenient both for the prosecuting authority and for the legal organization of combating crime. The changeover to the suggested form of implementation of the ban to turn for the worse in the institution of bringing and changing charges in court is possible only in a systematic link with the reform of the preliminary investigation. Conclusion. The institution of the criminal case returning by the court to the prosecutor in order to change the charge to a more serious one when implementing the adversarial model of bringing charges in the criminal procedure system of Russia will fully satisfy the concept of independence of justice administration and the absence of an accusatory bias in the activities of the court, while at the same time with fairly organized the prosecutorial power aimed at countering crime.The section 1 was prepared by N.N. Lysov, section 2 by K.D. Vanyan (together with M.T. Tashilin), section 3 by A.S. Shuisky (together with I.R. Gilmanov), section 4 by V.V. Kosterin.

Publisher

Dostoevsky Omsk State University

Reference32 articles.

1. Potapov V.D. The main principles of the verification of court decisions in the control and verification stages and proceedings of criminal proceedings in Russia, Doct. Diss. Thesis. Moscow, 2013. 68 p. (In Russ.).

2. Ivasenko K.V. Limits of the rights of higher instances when checking court decisions in appeal, cassation and supervisory proceedings, Cand. Diss. Thesis. Moscow, 2014. 33 p. (In Russ.).

3. Trukhin S.A. The subject and limits of the appeal proceedings of criminal cases, Cand. Diss. Thesis. Moscow, 2016. 28 p. (In Russ.).

4. Kilina I.V. A turn for the worse in the court of appeal. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2020. 152 p. (In Russ.).

5. Alexandrov A.S., Alexandrova I.A., Vlasova S.V. Theoretical concept of state-legal organization of crime prevention in the XXI century. Gosudarstvo i pravo = State and Law, 2019, no. 9, pp. 75–86. DOI: 10.31857/S013207690006732-7. (In Russ.).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3