POWERS OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN A JURY TRIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
T. Ryabinina, D. O. Chistilina
{"title":"POWERS OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN A JURY TRIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE","authors":"T. Ryabinina, D. O. Chistilina","doi":"10.17223/22253513/41/6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main objective is to examine the powers of the presiding judge in jury trials in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings. Particular attention will be paid by the authors to different approaches to the notion of adversariality and the definition of the role of a professional judge in such courts, as well as the degree of his activity during the judicial investigation. The main methods used by the authors were dialectical and systematic method, analysis, synthesis, as well as special legal methods of knowledge. The outcome of the research will be a definition of the role of the presiding judge in a jury trial. Forms of criminal procedure that allow the individual to directly participate in the deci-sion-making process of the judiciary are responsible for ensuring citizen participation in the administration of justice in the state. Two such forms have been developed in the world practice so far: the classical jury trial model and the Scheffen model. Each of them provides certain (broad or narrow) powers of a professional judge, the scope of which determines the degree of independence of citizens and the ultimate prospects for the development of a system of popular democratic justice in an adversarial system of criminal proceedings. In today's Russia, the classical jury trial model, modeled after the English jury trial, does not provide for broad powers of the court. In addition, there is the adversarial principle in Russia, which is fostered by the existence of jury trials. However, strict adherence to its provisions may lead to a misunderstanding of the role of the presiding judge in such a court. The activity of a professional judge should be balanced in accordance with the needs of the criminal case under consideration. Thus, requesting additional evidence in the course of the trial in order to verify existing evidence should not be considered a violation of the adversarial principle. Thus, the development of the optimal model for jury trial functioning as well as the determination of the presiding judge's role in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings is a socially-systemic task. It requires a comprehensive dogmatic, comparative-legal and political-legal approach in order to develop the jury trial model which is more con-sistent with the legal system of the state.","PeriodicalId":41435,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/41/6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The main objective is to examine the powers of the presiding judge in jury trials in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings. Particular attention will be paid by the authors to different approaches to the notion of adversariality and the definition of the role of a professional judge in such courts, as well as the degree of his activity during the judicial investigation. The main methods used by the authors were dialectical and systematic method, analysis, synthesis, as well as special legal methods of knowledge. The outcome of the research will be a definition of the role of the presiding judge in a jury trial. Forms of criminal procedure that allow the individual to directly participate in the deci-sion-making process of the judiciary are responsible for ensuring citizen participation in the administration of justice in the state. Two such forms have been developed in the world practice so far: the classical jury trial model and the Scheffen model. Each of them provides certain (broad or narrow) powers of a professional judge, the scope of which determines the degree of independence of citizens and the ultimate prospects for the development of a system of popular democratic justice in an adversarial system of criminal proceedings. In today's Russia, the classical jury trial model, modeled after the English jury trial, does not provide for broad powers of the court. In addition, there is the adversarial principle in Russia, which is fostered by the existence of jury trials. However, strict adherence to its provisions may lead to a misunderstanding of the role of the presiding judge in such a court. The activity of a professional judge should be balanced in accordance with the needs of the criminal case under consideration. Thus, requesting additional evidence in the course of the trial in order to verify existing evidence should not be considered a violation of the adversarial principle. Thus, the development of the optimal model for jury trial functioning as well as the determination of the presiding judge's role in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings is a socially-systemic task. It requires a comprehensive dogmatic, comparative-legal and political-legal approach in order to develop the jury trial model which is more con-sistent with the legal system of the state.
俄罗斯刑事诉讼对抗原则背景下陪审团审判中审判长的权力
主要目的是在刑事诉讼的对抗性原则的背景下审查陪审团审判中审判长的权力。作者将特别注意对对抗性概念的不同看法和在这类法院中专业法官的作用的定义,以及他在司法调查期间的活动程度。作者运用的方法主要有辩证系统法、分析综合法和专门的法律知识法。这项研究的结果将是对陪审团审判中主审法官的作用进行界定。允许个人直接参与司法决策过程的刑事诉讼形式有责任确保公民参与国家的司法行政。迄今为止,在世界实践中发展出两种形式:经典的陪审团审判模式和Scheffen模式。其中每一项都规定了专业法官的某些(广泛的或狭隘的)权力,其范围决定了公民的独立程度和在对抗性刑事诉讼制度中发展人民民主司法制度的最终前景。在今天的俄罗斯,模仿英国陪审团审判的古典陪审团审判模式并没有规定法院的广泛权力。此外,俄罗斯还有对抗原则,这是由陪审团审判的存在所促进的。但是,严格遵守其规定可能导致对这种法院庭长的作用的误解。职业法官的活动应当根据所审议的刑事案件的需要加以平衡。因此,在审判过程中要求补充证据以核实现有证据不应被视为违反对抗原则。因此,发展陪审团审判的最佳模式以及确定庭长法官在刑事诉讼对抗原则背景下的作用是一项社会系统任务。要发展更符合国家法律制度的陪审制度模式,需要综合运用教条式、比较法式和政法法式的方法。
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