Some Problems of Making a Procedural Decision to Close Criminal Proceedings in Connection with the Release of a Person from Criminal Liability

R. Blahuta, I. Basysta
{"title":"Some Problems of Making a Procedural Decision to Close Criminal Proceedings in Connection with the Release of a Person from Criminal Liability","authors":"R. Blahuta, I. Basysta","doi":"10.32518/2617-4162-2022-5-22-28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In judicial practice, there are situations when, as of the day of the decision of the appellate court, the statute of limitations for bringing the accused to criminal responsibility has expired, and the defense does not take the initiative to release the person from criminal liability. Accordingly, the court in no way responds to the existence of this circumstance and does not decide on the application (non-application) of the grounds contained in paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article. 284 of the CPC, or another, to make a procedural decision to close the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the aim is to try to answer the question of which of the procedural decisions, under the described conditions and circumstances, should be made by the court: to close the criminal proceedings in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability or a person should be released in the court of cassation from punishment? Due to the applied formal-logical method and systematic analysis, it was found that Part 2 of Art. 284 of the CPC concerns cases of closing criminal proceedings exclusively by the court. It was stated that in paragraph 1 of this part of the article, among the grounds for closing the criminal proceedings, the legislator provides and “...in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability.” At the same time, it has been proven that the right of a person to be released from criminal liability, if there are grounds for it, judges often do not depend on their own duty to explain to a person such a right so that he can use it. It is established that the responsibilities enshrined in Art. 285 of the CPC apply not only to courts of first instance, but also to appellate instances. Research methods such as sampling, system-structure, induction and deduction have been used to argue that in circumstances where a court conviction has entered into force, a person should be exempt from the court of cassation, this is stated in Part 5 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, on the grounds provided for in Art. 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the same time, it is proved that the court has hindered the adoption of such a procedural decision by the approach that the legislator laid down in the construction of paragraph 1, part 2 of Art. 284, art. 440 of the CCP.","PeriodicalId":344341,"journal":{"name":"Social Legal Studios","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Legal Studios","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32518/2617-4162-2022-5-22-28","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

In judicial practice, there are situations when, as of the day of the decision of the appellate court, the statute of limitations for bringing the accused to criminal responsibility has expired, and the defense does not take the initiative to release the person from criminal liability. Accordingly, the court in no way responds to the existence of this circumstance and does not decide on the application (non-application) of the grounds contained in paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article. 284 of the CPC, or another, to make a procedural decision to close the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the aim is to try to answer the question of which of the procedural decisions, under the described conditions and circumstances, should be made by the court: to close the criminal proceedings in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability or a person should be released in the court of cassation from punishment? Due to the applied formal-logical method and systematic analysis, it was found that Part 2 of Art. 284 of the CPC concerns cases of closing criminal proceedings exclusively by the court. It was stated that in paragraph 1 of this part of the article, among the grounds for closing the criminal proceedings, the legislator provides and “...in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability.” At the same time, it has been proven that the right of a person to be released from criminal liability, if there are grounds for it, judges often do not depend on their own duty to explain to a person such a right so that he can use it. It is established that the responsibilities enshrined in Art. 285 of the CPC apply not only to courts of first instance, but also to appellate instances. Research methods such as sampling, system-structure, induction and deduction have been used to argue that in circumstances where a court conviction has entered into force, a person should be exempt from the court of cassation, this is stated in Part 5 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, on the grounds provided for in Art. 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the same time, it is proved that the court has hindered the adoption of such a procedural decision by the approach that the legislator laid down in the construction of paragraph 1, part 2 of Art. 284, art. 440 of the CCP.
免除刑事责任作出刑事结案程序决定的若干问题
在司法实践中,在上诉法院作出判决之日,对被告追究刑事责任的诉讼时效已过,辩护方却没有主动解除被告的刑事责任。因此,法院不以任何方式回应这种情况的存在,也不决定是否适用(不适用)《方案协调会》第284条第2部分第1款所载的理由或其他理由,作出结束刑事诉讼的程序性决定。因此,目的是试图回答这样一个问题,即在上述条件和情况下,法院应作出哪一种程序性决定:结束与释放某人免于刑事责任有关的刑事诉讼程序,还是应在免除刑罚的法院释放某人?通过运用形式逻辑方法和系统分析,发现《中国共产党诉讼法》第284条第2部分涉及的是专门由法院结束刑事诉讼的案件。有人指出,在该条这一部分第1款中,在结束刑事诉讼的理由中,立法者规定和“……与免除刑事责任有关。”同时,事实证明,一个人被免除刑事责任的权利,如果有理由,法官往往不依靠自己的义务向一个人解释这种权利,使他能够使用它。可以确定的是,《CPC》第285条所规定的责任不仅适用于一审法院,也适用于上诉案件。抽样、制度结构、归纳和演绎等研究方法已被用来论证,在法院判决已生效的情况下,一个人应免于上诉法院的审判,乌克兰刑法第74条第5部分根据乌克兰刑法第49条规定的理由说明了这一点。同时,可以证明,法院以立法者在解释第284条第2部分第1款时所规定的方法阻碍了这种程序性决定的通过。中国共产党440。
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