From protecting public interest to protecting the victim's interest

The historical development of the criminal procedure is characterised by its nationalisation. Relations to determine the consequences of the crime by the model "criminal - victim" gave way to the model "criminal - state". The victim of a crime with their psychological problems and internal conflict is perceived in the criminal procedure mechanically; their role is reduced to the assistance in establishing the full picture of the crime. When setting up a public model of the criminal procedure, a state monopoly on criminal prosecution is established, which in the criminal procedure legislation leads to a "narrow" understanding of the interest of the victim and its reduction to a punitive model (the victim facilitates the conviction and punishment of the offender), to the settlement of civil claims (compensation of damage). This is facilitated by the formation of public interest in a broad sense, as compensation for harm caused by the crime to society, the state, law and order, but not to a specific person who also has their own internal conflicts and feelings about the crime. The Russian criminal procedure law exacerbates this narrow understanding by placing the victim on the prosecution side. Studies show that victims are often not interested in bringing the accused to criminal liability. Victims themselves often consider financial compensation for harm and reconciliation with the accused sufficient to satisfy their needs. This proves that there is an interest in resolving a psychological conflict. The model of restorative justice provides for this opportunity as it proposes to first resolve the psychological conflict by forming in the perpetrator an understanding of the consequences of the committed crime and experiences of the victim, a sense of guilt for what was done, thus removing the psychological strain of the victim. The authors come to a conclusion that it is possible to incorporate elements of restorative justice into the public model of the criminal procedure, since their values are similar as a whole. In particular, the authors propose to expand the application of reconciliation, to ensure its institutionalisation and professionalisation, as well as to assess the results of reconciliation for a number of crimes as grounds for stopping criminal prosecution, or as circumstances that actually affect the degree of punishment.

Keywords

Authors

References