Objectives in studying the motivation of the accused in criminal procedure: Scientific, practical, interdisciplinary, and specialized approaches

This article explores the objectives of studying the motivation of a person subject to criminal prosecution within criminal proceedings. By synthesizing the psychological concept of human motivation with definitions proposed by scholars in the criminal legal sciences, the article concludes that the motivation of such a person is a complex mental phenomenona subjective, determinative system. The author posits that the study of this phenomenon, which involves identifying the circumstances (facts) that express and characterize it during practical criminal procedural activity, should facilitate the resolution of several critical tasks. These tasks arise when issuing specific procedural decisions and when conducting procedural actions that precede or follow those decisions. Based on an analysis and synthesis of existing research in psychology and the criminal legal sciences, as well as provisions of current criminal and criminal procedural law, the author identifies and describes three groups of tasks addressed by studying the motivation of the accused in practical criminal procedural work. First, there are the criminal law, criminological, and to a certain extent, penological tasks. These are primary and mandatory tasks that arise when rendering verdicts and, in some cases, other procedural acts; chief among them are the tasks of correctly qualifying the crime and imposing a just punishment on the accused (defendant). Second, there are forensic tasks, necessitated by the requirement to establish circumstances (facts) that constitute the subject of proof in a criminal case. These include the task of identifying the person to be subject to criminal prosecution and selecting the appropriate tactical approach for the prosecuting authority and the court in dealing with that person after identification. Third, there are tasks related to issuing procedural acts whose primary purpose is not to resolve criminal law, criminological, or penological questions. These include, in particular, tasks related to issuing procedural decisions on the selection, extension, modification, or cancellation of preventive measures and other measures of procedural coercion against the accused (or suspect). The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References