Between Convictions and Reconciliations: Processing Criminal Cases in Kazakhstani Courts

IF 0.2 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Alexei Trochev
{"title":"Between Convictions and Reconciliations: Processing Criminal Cases in Kazakhstani Courts","authors":"Alexei Trochev","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/yh7fb","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The criminal justice system in Kazakhstan is full of contradictions: Soviet-era accusatorial bias in pre-trial detention and sentencing goes hand in hand with the pro-defendant bias in closing criminal cases. This paradoxical co-existence of seemingly contradictory biases fits well within the informal power map of the criminal justice system. The major reform—reducing prison population to decrease recidivism and minimize international shaming—was coupled with the more recent drives for closing cases on the basis of reconciliation, the total registration of crimes, and zero tolerance approach to combating crime have been achieved only through the change of the incentive structure in the criminal justice system. The post-Soviet innovation of closing criminal cases of public prosecution based on the reconciliation with the victim of crime has proliferated in Kazakhstan because this matched both the incentives of the key actors in the criminal justice system and demands from private actors who are involved in criminal proceedings. In contrast, other types of public participation, such as jury trials, which implement the right to a fair trial, give teeth to adversarial proceedings, and cultivate judicial independence—requirements of the Constitution of Kazakhstan—have rarely been used because they disrupt existing power relationships within the law-enforcement system.","PeriodicalId":45714,"journal":{"name":"CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/yh7fb","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The criminal justice system in Kazakhstan is full of contradictions: Soviet-era accusatorial bias in pre-trial detention and sentencing goes hand in hand with the pro-defendant bias in closing criminal cases. This paradoxical co-existence of seemingly contradictory biases fits well within the informal power map of the criminal justice system. The major reform—reducing prison population to decrease recidivism and minimize international shaming—was coupled with the more recent drives for closing cases on the basis of reconciliation, the total registration of crimes, and zero tolerance approach to combating crime have been achieved only through the change of the incentive structure in the criminal justice system. The post-Soviet innovation of closing criminal cases of public prosecution based on the reconciliation with the victim of crime has proliferated in Kazakhstan because this matched both the incentives of the key actors in the criminal justice system and demands from private actors who are involved in criminal proceedings. In contrast, other types of public participation, such as jury trials, which implement the right to a fair trial, give teeth to adversarial proceedings, and cultivate judicial independence—requirements of the Constitution of Kazakhstan—have rarely been used because they disrupt existing power relationships within the law-enforcement system.
在定罪与和解之间:哈萨克斯坦法院处理刑事案件
哈萨克斯坦的刑事司法系统充满了矛盾:苏联时代在审前拘留和量刑方面的控诉偏见与结案时的亲被告偏见齐头并进。这种看似矛盾的偏见的矛盾共存非常适合刑事司法系统的非正式权力地图。主要的改革——减少监狱人口以减少累犯和最大限度地减少国际耻辱——与最近在和解的基础上结案的努力、犯罪的全部登记和打击犯罪的零容忍方法相结合,只有通过改变刑事司法系统的激励结构才能实现。苏联解体后,在与犯罪受害者和解的基础上结案公诉刑事案件的创新在哈萨克斯坦大量出现,因为这既符合刑事司法系统中关键行为者的动机,也符合参与刑事诉讼的私人行为者的要求。相比之下,其他类型的公众参与,如陪审团审判,实现了公平审判的权利,使对抗式诉讼生效,并培养了司法独立——这是哈萨克斯坦宪法的要求——很少被使用,因为它们破坏了执法系统内现有的权力关系。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1967, the Cornell International Law Journal is one of the oldest and most prominent international law journals in the country. Three times a year, the Journal publishes scholarship that reflects the sweeping changes that are taking place in public and private international law. Two of the issues feature articles by legal scholars, practitioners, and participants in international politics as well as student-written notes. The third issue is dedicated to publishing papers generated by the Journal"s annual Symposium, held every spring in Ithaca, New York.
×
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