数字现实中刑事诉讼证据和其他司法证据的新来源

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
A. Sharipova
{"title":"数字现实中刑事诉讼证据和其他司法证据的新来源","authors":"A. Sharipova","doi":"10.21638/spbu14.2023.105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The attitude of law, practice and science to actively appearing sources of evidentiary information is controversial and belated. Besides some exceptions Criminal Procedure Code does not contain special rules for handling electronic information. Meanwhile evidentiary rules were formulated more than half a century ago and were principally oriented only on receiving analog information. Electronic traces and ways of displaying legally relevant information contained in them are sospecific that previous procedural forms are not usable nowadays. Procedural science develops the theory of electronic evidence on a sectoral basis. However, thecommunity of information-digital technologies which is lying in the core of impetuous growth of importance of electronic information predetermines the possibility of producing consolidated intersectoral rules. Examples of foreign science show the success of this approach. Criminally-remedial practice uses only sourcesby which you can get paper analogs or conduct an examination while proving. The extension of traditional inspection, seizure, search and examination to electronic information lowers its efficiency and does not provide a regime of secrets protected by law. A huge layer of electronic information remains outside the procedural proof. Its real value is confirmed by its use in law enforcement intelligence-gathering activities. Defensive side in criminal proceedings is deprived of even a few evidentiary opportunities in relation to digital information. Civil, Arbitral, Administrative proceedings are more open to recent evidences. Equal rights of the contestants contribute to the development of electronic evidence. A criminal procedure with a monopoly of the prosecution on it strengthens the accusatory bias and impoverishes the proof as a whole. A further spread in the share of electronic evidence in criminal procedural proving requires a change in approaches to it, a rejection of the exclusively classical rules for dealing with them, the extension of civilistic approaches to the relevant activities of the defense.","PeriodicalId":41041,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University-Law-Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Pravo","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New sources of criminal procedural and other judicial evidence in digital reality\",\"authors\":\"A. Sharipova\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu14.2023.105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The attitude of law, practice and science to actively appearing sources of evidentiary information is controversial and belated. Besides some exceptions Criminal Procedure Code does not contain special rules for handling electronic information. Meanwhile evidentiary rules were formulated more than half a century ago and were principally oriented only on receiving analog information. Electronic traces and ways of displaying legally relevant information contained in them are sospecific that previous procedural forms are not usable nowadays. Procedural science develops the theory of electronic evidence on a sectoral basis. However, thecommunity of information-digital technologies which is lying in the core of impetuous growth of importance of electronic information predetermines the possibility of producing consolidated intersectoral rules. Examples of foreign science show the success of this approach. Criminally-remedial practice uses only sourcesby which you can get paper analogs or conduct an examination while proving. The extension of traditional inspection, seizure, search and examination to electronic information lowers its efficiency and does not provide a regime of secrets protected by law. A huge layer of electronic information remains outside the procedural proof. Its real value is confirmed by its use in law enforcement intelligence-gathering activities. Defensive side in criminal proceedings is deprived of even a few evidentiary opportunities in relation to digital information. Civil, Arbitral, Administrative proceedings are more open to recent evidences. Equal rights of the contestants contribute to the development of electronic evidence. A criminal procedure with a monopoly of the prosecution on it strengthens the accusatory bias and impoverishes the proof as a whole. A further spread in the share of electronic evidence in criminal procedural proving requires a change in approaches to it, a rejection of the exclusively classical rules for dealing with them, the extension of civilistic approaches to the relevant activities of the defense.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University-Law-Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Pravo\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University-Law-Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Pravo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2023.105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University-Law-Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Pravo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2023.105","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

摘要

法律、实践和科学对积极出现的证据信息来源的态度存在争议和滞后。除了一些例外情况外,《刑事诉讼法》没有关于处理电子信息的特别规则。同时,证据规则是在半个多世纪以前制定的,主要是针对接收模拟信息。电子痕迹及其所包含的法律相关信息的显示方式非常具体,以致于以前的程序形式在今天已经无法使用。程序科学在部门基础上发展了电子证据理论。然而,处于电子信息重要性快速增长核心的信息-数字技术共同体预先决定了制定统一部门间规则的可能性。国外科学的例子表明了这种方法的成功。刑事补救实践只使用可以获得纸张类似物或在证明时进行检查的来源。将传统的检查、扣押、搜查和审查扩展到电子信息,降低了其效率,也没有提供一个受法律保护的秘密制度。大量的电子信息仍在程序证明之外。它在执法情报收集活动中的使用证实了它的真正价值。在涉及数字信息的刑事诉讼中,辩护方甚至被剥夺了很少的举证机会。民事、仲裁、行政诉讼对最近的证据更加开放。竞争对手的平等权利有助于电子证据的发展。一个由控方垄断的刑事诉讼程序加强了指控偏见,并使整个证据变得贫瘠。电子证据在刑事程序证明中所占份额的进一步扩大,需要改变处理电子证据的方法,拒绝处理电子证据的专门经典规则,将文明方法扩展到辩方的有关活动中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New sources of criminal procedural and other judicial evidence in digital reality
The attitude of law, practice and science to actively appearing sources of evidentiary information is controversial and belated. Besides some exceptions Criminal Procedure Code does not contain special rules for handling electronic information. Meanwhile evidentiary rules were formulated more than half a century ago and were principally oriented only on receiving analog information. Electronic traces and ways of displaying legally relevant information contained in them are sospecific that previous procedural forms are not usable nowadays. Procedural science develops the theory of electronic evidence on a sectoral basis. However, thecommunity of information-digital technologies which is lying in the core of impetuous growth of importance of electronic information predetermines the possibility of producing consolidated intersectoral rules. Examples of foreign science show the success of this approach. Criminally-remedial practice uses only sourcesby which you can get paper analogs or conduct an examination while proving. The extension of traditional inspection, seizure, search and examination to electronic information lowers its efficiency and does not provide a regime of secrets protected by law. A huge layer of electronic information remains outside the procedural proof. Its real value is confirmed by its use in law enforcement intelligence-gathering activities. Defensive side in criminal proceedings is deprived of even a few evidentiary opportunities in relation to digital information. Civil, Arbitral, Administrative proceedings are more open to recent evidences. Equal rights of the contestants contribute to the development of electronic evidence. A criminal procedure with a monopoly of the prosecution on it strengthens the accusatory bias and impoverishes the proof as a whole. A further spread in the share of electronic evidence in criminal procedural proving requires a change in approaches to it, a rejection of the exclusively classical rules for dealing with them, the extension of civilistic approaches to the relevant activities of the defense.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
18
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信