CONVERGENCE OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAW IN THE SPHERE OF CRIMINAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

V. Kolesnik
{"title":"CONVERGENCE OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAW IN THE SPHERE OF CRIMINAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS","authors":"V. Kolesnik","doi":"10.14529/law230203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The subject of the article was the identification of the main directions and results of the convergence of private and criminal law in the field of criminal justice. The purpose of the article was to sum up the results of the development in domestic science of a set of views on the process of convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal justice. The main subject of the analysis was the conceptual apparatus, which reflected changes in ideas about the measure of private and public in the mechanism of criminal procedure regulation. The author of the article tried to overcome dogmatic obstacles to strengthen private law values in the domestic criminal procedural culture, including ideas about a contractual method for resolving issues related to the conduct and completion of a criminal case. The main dogmatic obstacle is the postulate about the dominance of the public law principle, interpreted in the investigative sense. The investigative ideology hinders the convergence of private and public law in domestic criminal procedure science. The main areas of application of the author's developments are seen as «evidence law» and «law of accusation», as the backbone institutions of Russian criminal procedure law. It is in them that the essence of the Russian type of criminal process is embodied. Changes in these institutions are significant in terms of the degree of penetration of the private principle into their public law nature. The author comes to the conclusion that the convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal proceedings manifested itself in a number of sub-institutions, including private and private-public types of prosecution, alternative outcomes of a criminal case on some nonrehabilitating grounds, a pre-trial agreement on cooperation, a special procedure for considering a criminal affairs. All these institutions stand on two «super-institutions» of procedural law: accusation and proof. To some extent, both of these institutions were affected by the convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal justice. The conclusions made by the author contribute to the development of the general doctrine of the convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal justice. He makes specific proposals for the modernization of the institutions of prosecution and proof in the light of the concepts of «contract».","PeriodicalId":394596,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the South Ural State University series \"Law\"","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the South Ural State University series \"Law\"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14529/law230203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The subject of the article was the identification of the main directions and results of the convergence of private and criminal law in the field of criminal justice. The purpose of the article was to sum up the results of the development in domestic science of a set of views on the process of convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal justice. The main subject of the analysis was the conceptual apparatus, which reflected changes in ideas about the measure of private and public in the mechanism of criminal procedure regulation. The author of the article tried to overcome dogmatic obstacles to strengthen private law values in the domestic criminal procedural culture, including ideas about a contractual method for resolving issues related to the conduct and completion of a criminal case. The main dogmatic obstacle is the postulate about the dominance of the public law principle, interpreted in the investigative sense. The investigative ideology hinders the convergence of private and public law in domestic criminal procedure science. The main areas of application of the author's developments are seen as «evidence law» and «law of accusation», as the backbone institutions of Russian criminal procedure law. It is in them that the essence of the Russian type of criminal process is embodied. Changes in these institutions are significant in terms of the degree of penetration of the private principle into their public law nature. The author comes to the conclusion that the convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal proceedings manifested itself in a number of sub-institutions, including private and private-public types of prosecution, alternative outcomes of a criminal case on some nonrehabilitating grounds, a pre-trial agreement on cooperation, a special procedure for considering a criminal affairs. All these institutions stand on two «super-institutions» of procedural law: accusation and proof. To some extent, both of these institutions were affected by the convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal justice. The conclusions made by the author contribute to the development of the general doctrine of the convergence of private and public law in the field of criminal justice. He makes specific proposals for the modernization of the institutions of prosecution and proof in the light of the concepts of «contract».
私法和公法在刑事诉讼领域的融合
该条的主题是确定私法和刑法在刑事司法领域趋同的主要方向和结果。这篇文章的目的是总结国内科学对刑事司法领域中私法和公法趋同过程的一套观点的发展结果。分析的主要主题是概念机构,它反映了刑事诉讼规制机制中关于公私尺度观念的变化。本文作者试图克服教条式的障碍,以加强国内刑事诉讼文化中的私法价值,包括关于解决与刑事案件的行为和结案有关的问题的合同方法的想法。主要的教条式障碍是关于公法原则的主导地位的假设,从调查的意义上解释。侦查意识形态阻碍了国内刑事诉讼科学中私法与公法的融合。作者的发展的主要适用领域被视为“证据法”和“指控法”,作为俄罗斯刑事诉讼法的骨干机构。正是在这些案件中,体现了俄罗斯式刑事程序的本质。就私法原则对公法性质的渗透程度而言,这些制度的变化是显著的。作者的结论是,私法和公法在刑事诉讼领域的趋同表现在若干次级制度上,包括私人和私人-公共类型的起诉、基于某些非复原理由的刑事案件的替代结果、关于合作的审前协定、审议刑事事务的特别程序。所有这些制度都建立在程序法的两个“超级制度”之上:指控和证明。在某种程度上,这两个机构都受到刑事司法领域私法和公法趋同的影响。作者的结论有助于在刑事司法领域发展私法和公法趋同的一般学说。他根据“契约”的概念,对起诉和证明机构的现代化提出了具体建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信