Reconciliation Discourses and Problems of Institutionalization of Reconciliation Procedures in Criminal Cases

IF 0.4 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
L. Karnozova
{"title":"Reconciliation Discourses and Problems of Institutionalization of Reconciliation Procedures in Criminal Cases","authors":"L. Karnozova","doi":"10.17759/psylaw.2024140217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The global trend of development of new approaches in criminal proceedings, as well as the emerging domestic practice of restorative justice in the last two decades set objective prerequisites for the institutionalisation of conciliation procedures in criminal cases in Russian law. However, attempts to legislate them have not yet been successful. The author considers the clash of socio-cultural discourses as a key factor of resistance to innovation. The article analyses the difference between the understanding of reconciliation in the concept of restorative justice and the dominant legal discourse on reconciliation in criminal cases, and considers the main ideas of the draft laws developed by the initiative working group of the Public Centre for Judicial and Legal Reform in 2020 and 2021. It is shown that interpreting the characteristics of restorative justice in terms of unproblematised legal axioms contradicts the proposed initiatives. The identification of the discursive grounds behind the different positions, against the background of increasing recognition of the role of reconciliation procedures, is a prerequisite for improving the conceptual system that corresponds to the objectives of modern humanistic criminal justice.","PeriodicalId":43238,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Law","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2024140217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The global trend of development of new approaches in criminal proceedings, as well as the emerging domestic practice of restorative justice in the last two decades set objective prerequisites for the institutionalisation of conciliation procedures in criminal cases in Russian law. However, attempts to legislate them have not yet been successful. The author considers the clash of socio-cultural discourses as a key factor of resistance to innovation. The article analyses the difference between the understanding of reconciliation in the concept of restorative justice and the dominant legal discourse on reconciliation in criminal cases, and considers the main ideas of the draft laws developed by the initiative working group of the Public Centre for Judicial and Legal Reform in 2020 and 2021. It is shown that interpreting the characteristics of restorative justice in terms of unproblematised legal axioms contradicts the proposed initiatives. The identification of the discursive grounds behind the different positions, against the background of increasing recognition of the role of reconciliation procedures, is a prerequisite for improving the conceptual system that corresponds to the objectives of modern humanistic criminal justice.
刑事案件中的和解论述与和解程序制度化问题
刑事诉讼中新方法的全球发展趋势,以及过去二十年中国内新兴的恢复性司法实践,为俄罗斯法律中刑事案件调解程序的制度化提供了客观前提。然而,对其进行立法的尝试尚未取得成功。作者认为社会文化论述的冲突是阻碍创新的关键因素。文章分析了恢复性司法概念中对和解的理解与关于刑事案件和解的主流法律论述之间的差异,并探讨了司法和法律改革公共中心倡议工作组于 2020 年和 2021 年制定的法律草案的主要观点。结果表明,用没有问题的法律公理来解释恢复性司法的特点与提出的倡议相矛盾。在和解程序的作用日益得到认可的背景下,确定不同立场背后的话语基础,是完善符合现代人文刑事司法目标的概念体系的先决条件。
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
Psychology and Law
Psychology and Law PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
75.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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