侦查人员对犯罪情节的证明

V. Hnatenko
{"title":"侦查人员对犯罪情节的证明","authors":"V. Hnatenko","doi":"10.26565/2075-1834-2021-32-09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The article investigates the problem of proving the circumstances of a criminal offense by investigators. The procedural powers of the investigator are defined in such a way that the investigator makes all decisions on investigative (search) actions, except when the law provides for obtaining approval from the prosecutor or sanctions from the investigating judge and is fully responsible for their legality. After obtaining the factual data, consolidating them as evidence, the investigator must evaluate all the evidence according to his inner convictions. The investigator must be sure that the criminal offense was committed by the suspect. If he has doubts about the commission of a criminal offense by a certain suspect, he must seek evidence of both guilt and innocence.\n\nSummary of the main research results. It is proposed to establish the limits of proving a criminal offense on the basis of regulatory support of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The elements of the limits of proof of a criminal offense include the fact of the criminal offense, factual data, information about the facts and procedurally established evidence indicating the guilt of the suspect. It is important to note that the limits of proof must be based not only on the circumstances of the criminal offense, but also on the circumstances that affect the severity of the criminal offense or are grounds for exemption from criminal liability.\n\nConclusions. It is proposed to amend the CPC of Ukraine and establish a mechanism for procedural guidance of the investigator during the operational and investigative activities of operational units. The investigator's activity in determining the subject and limits of evidence in the pre-trial investigation can be improved by improving his procedural status. To this end, it is advisable to strengthen the procedural independence of the investigator, respectively, reducing his dependence on the prosecutor in terms of evaluating the evidence on key issues of pre-trial investigation. Other ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are proposed.","PeriodicalId":33522,"journal":{"name":"Visnik Kharkivs''kogo natsional''nogo universitetu imeni VN Karazina Seriia Ekonomika","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROVING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY AN INVESTIGATOR\",\"authors\":\"V. Hnatenko\",\"doi\":\"10.26565/2075-1834-2021-32-09\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. The article investigates the problem of proving the circumstances of a criminal offense by investigators. The procedural powers of the investigator are defined in such a way that the investigator makes all decisions on investigative (search) actions, except when the law provides for obtaining approval from the prosecutor or sanctions from the investigating judge and is fully responsible for their legality. After obtaining the factual data, consolidating them as evidence, the investigator must evaluate all the evidence according to his inner convictions. The investigator must be sure that the criminal offense was committed by the suspect. If he has doubts about the commission of a criminal offense by a certain suspect, he must seek evidence of both guilt and innocence.\\n\\nSummary of the main research results. It is proposed to establish the limits of proving a criminal offense on the basis of regulatory support of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The elements of the limits of proof of a criminal offense include the fact of the criminal offense, factual data, information about the facts and procedurally established evidence indicating the guilt of the suspect. It is important to note that the limits of proof must be based not only on the circumstances of the criminal offense, but also on the circumstances that affect the severity of the criminal offense or are grounds for exemption from criminal liability.\\n\\nConclusions. It is proposed to amend the CPC of Ukraine and establish a mechanism for procedural guidance of the investigator during the operational and investigative activities of operational units. The investigator's activity in determining the subject and limits of evidence in the pre-trial investigation can be improved by improving his procedural status. To this end, it is advisable to strengthen the procedural independence of the investigator, respectively, reducing his dependence on the prosecutor in terms of evaluating the evidence on key issues of pre-trial investigation. Other ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are proposed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Visnik Kharkivs''kogo natsional''nogo universitetu imeni VN Karazina Seriia Ekonomika\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Visnik Kharkivs''kogo natsional''nogo universitetu imeni VN Karazina Seriia Ekonomika\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26565/2075-1834-2021-32-09\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Visnik Kharkivs''kogo natsional''nogo universitetu imeni VN Karazina Seriia Ekonomika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26565/2075-1834-2021-32-09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍。本文对侦查人员证明犯罪情节的问题进行了探讨。调查人员的程序性权力是这样界定的,即调查人员对调查(搜查)行动作出所有决定,除非法律规定获得检察官的批准或调查法官的制裁,并对其合法性负全部责任。在获得事实资料并将其作为证据加以巩固之后,侦查人员必须根据自己内心的信念对所有证据进行评估。调查人员必须确定犯罪是嫌疑人所为。如果他对某一犯罪嫌疑人的犯罪行为有怀疑,他必须寻求有罪和无罪的证据。主要研究成果总结。建议在乌克兰《刑法》的规制支持基础上,确立刑事犯罪的证明限度。刑事犯罪证据限度的构成要件包括犯罪事实、事实资料、有关事实的资料和程序上确定的表明犯罪嫌疑人有罪的证据。值得注意的是,举证的限度不仅必须以犯罪的情节为基础,而且必须以影响犯罪严重性或作为免除刑事责任理由的情节为基础。建议修正乌克兰的方案协调会,并建立一个机制,在业务单位的业务和调查活动期间对调查员进行程序指导。通过提高侦查人员的程序地位,可以加强侦查人员在审前侦查中确定证据主体和证据限度的活动。为此,应加强侦查人员的程序独立性,减少侦查人员在审前调查的关键问题上对检察官的依赖。提出了改进乌克兰现行立法的其他途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PROVING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY AN INVESTIGATOR
Introduction. The article investigates the problem of proving the circumstances of a criminal offense by investigators. The procedural powers of the investigator are defined in such a way that the investigator makes all decisions on investigative (search) actions, except when the law provides for obtaining approval from the prosecutor or sanctions from the investigating judge and is fully responsible for their legality. After obtaining the factual data, consolidating them as evidence, the investigator must evaluate all the evidence according to his inner convictions. The investigator must be sure that the criminal offense was committed by the suspect. If he has doubts about the commission of a criminal offense by a certain suspect, he must seek evidence of both guilt and innocence. Summary of the main research results. It is proposed to establish the limits of proving a criminal offense on the basis of regulatory support of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The elements of the limits of proof of a criminal offense include the fact of the criminal offense, factual data, information about the facts and procedurally established evidence indicating the guilt of the suspect. It is important to note that the limits of proof must be based not only on the circumstances of the criminal offense, but also on the circumstances that affect the severity of the criminal offense or are grounds for exemption from criminal liability. Conclusions. It is proposed to amend the CPC of Ukraine and establish a mechanism for procedural guidance of the investigator during the operational and investigative activities of operational units. The investigator's activity in determining the subject and limits of evidence in the pre-trial investigation can be improved by improving his procedural status. To this end, it is advisable to strengthen the procedural independence of the investigator, respectively, reducing his dependence on the prosecutor in terms of evaluating the evidence on key issues of pre-trial investigation. Other ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are proposed.
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
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 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