刑事诉讼当事人的程序平等

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
I. N. Chebotareva
{"title":"刑事诉讼当事人的程序平等","authors":"I. N. Chebotareva","doi":"10.17072/1995-4190-2023-61-499-520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: the article explores the national, historical, and international legal aspects of the concept and essence of equality of arms in criminal proceedings as a balance of procedural means and conditions providing each party with the opportunity to present and defend their position on the case before the court. Objectives: to study the concept of equality of the parties within the concept of adversarial criminal proceedings of the Russian theory of criminal procedure; to analyze the relationship of the adversarial principle and equality of the parties as well as the essence of procedural equality of arms in its doctrinal and legal meaning in Russia; to articulate the concept and essence of the international legal principle of equality of arms. Methods: general scientific dialectical method of cognition, systematic approach, general scientific methods (deduction and induction), specific scientific methods (logical and legal analysis and synthesis). Results: the study has shown that the concept ‘equality of arms’ used in the Russian theory of criminal procedure, criminal procedural legislation, and law enforcement practice does not fully reflect all aspects of a fair balance of procedural possibilities of the parties in criminal proceedings. There is an imbalance of legal means and conditions, with the defense being at a disadvantage compared to the prosecution. Conclusions: it is necessary to improve the legislation in order to ensure the balance of the parties’ legal possibilities through establishing elements of favorable treatment of the defense; to provide the defense with the real means necessary to protect their interests; to create conditions that would make it possible to really use these means, i.e., to create mechanisms balancing the parties not only at the level of the law but also in its implementation.","PeriodicalId":42087,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta-Juridicheskie Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROCEDURAL EQUALITY OF THE PARTIES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS\",\"authors\":\"I. N. Chebotareva\",\"doi\":\"10.17072/1995-4190-2023-61-499-520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: the article explores the national, historical, and international legal aspects of the concept and essence of equality of arms in criminal proceedings as a balance of procedural means and conditions providing each party with the opportunity to present and defend their position on the case before the court. Objectives: to study the concept of equality of the parties within the concept of adversarial criminal proceedings of the Russian theory of criminal procedure; to analyze the relationship of the adversarial principle and equality of the parties as well as the essence of procedural equality of arms in its doctrinal and legal meaning in Russia; to articulate the concept and essence of the international legal principle of equality of arms. Methods: general scientific dialectical method of cognition, systematic approach, general scientific methods (deduction and induction), specific scientific methods (logical and legal analysis and synthesis). Results: the study has shown that the concept ‘equality of arms’ used in the Russian theory of criminal procedure, criminal procedural legislation, and law enforcement practice does not fully reflect all aspects of a fair balance of procedural possibilities of the parties in criminal proceedings. There is an imbalance of legal means and conditions, with the defense being at a disadvantage compared to the prosecution. Conclusions: it is necessary to improve the legislation in order to ensure the balance of the parties’ legal possibilities through establishing elements of favorable treatment of the defense; to provide the defense with the real means necessary to protect their interests; to create conditions that would make it possible to really use these means, i.e., to create mechanisms balancing the parties not only at the level of the law but also in its implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta-Juridicheskie Nauki\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta-Juridicheskie Nauki\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2023-61-499-520\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta-Juridicheskie Nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2023-61-499-520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:本文探讨了刑事诉讼中武器平等的概念和本质的国家、历史和国际法律方面,作为一种程序手段和条件的平衡,使各方都有机会在法庭上陈述和捍卫自己在案件中的立场。目的:研究俄罗斯刑事诉讼理论中对抗性刑事诉讼概念中的当事人平等概念;分析了俄罗斯对抗性原则与当事人平等的关系以及程序性武器平等的理论和法律意义;阐明武器平等的国际法原则的概念和实质。方法:一般科学的辩证认识方法,系统方法,一般科学方法(演绎和归纳法),具体科学方法(逻辑和法律的分析和综合)。结果:研究表明,俄罗斯刑事诉讼理论、刑事诉讼立法和执法实践中使用的“武器平等”概念没有充分反映刑事诉讼中各方诉讼可能性的公平平衡的各个方面。辩护方与检方相比处于不利地位,法律手段和条件不平衡。结论:有必要完善立法,通过设立辩护人优待要素,保证当事人法律可能性的平衡;为被告方提供维护自身利益所必需的真实手段;创造条件,使能够真正使用这些手段,即创造机制,不仅在法律一级而且在执行方面平衡各方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PROCEDURAL EQUALITY OF THE PARTIES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Introduction: the article explores the national, historical, and international legal aspects of the concept and essence of equality of arms in criminal proceedings as a balance of procedural means and conditions providing each party with the opportunity to present and defend their position on the case before the court. Objectives: to study the concept of equality of the parties within the concept of adversarial criminal proceedings of the Russian theory of criminal procedure; to analyze the relationship of the adversarial principle and equality of the parties as well as the essence of procedural equality of arms in its doctrinal and legal meaning in Russia; to articulate the concept and essence of the international legal principle of equality of arms. Methods: general scientific dialectical method of cognition, systematic approach, general scientific methods (deduction and induction), specific scientific methods (logical and legal analysis and synthesis). Results: the study has shown that the concept ‘equality of arms’ used in the Russian theory of criminal procedure, criminal procedural legislation, and law enforcement practice does not fully reflect all aspects of a fair balance of procedural possibilities of the parties in criminal proceedings. There is an imbalance of legal means and conditions, with the defense being at a disadvantage compared to the prosecution. Conclusions: it is necessary to improve the legislation in order to ensure the balance of the parties’ legal possibilities through establishing elements of favorable treatment of the defense; to provide the defense with the real means necessary to protect their interests; to create conditions that would make it possible to really use these means, i.e., to create mechanisms balancing the parties not only at the level of the law but also in its implementation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
50.00%
发文量
7
×
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