Differentiation of criminal procedure should have reasonable limits and shouldn’t lead to simplification

A criminal legal criterion is considered to be a basic one for differentiation of criminal proceedings alongside criminal procedural criteria, including complexity in ascertaining factual circumstances of a case and determining characteristics of a person who is a party to a trial. The current Criminal procedural Code of the Russian Federation separates independent proceedings in relation to execution of sentences, improves the procedural regulation of the order of procedure including enforcement of compulsory medical measures and defines clearly the legal position of a person under this procedure. But legislators seem to overindulge in the process of differentiation of criminal proceedings. The excessive broadening of judicial control makes an investigator lose his procedural independence; the courts of general jurisdiction are overloaded with such cases and therefore judges have less time for qualitative hearing of criminal cases on merits: theoretically criminal proceedings are” vague” i.e. they lose their essence and purpose. A major drawback of the latest changes in the criminal procedural changes is the introduction of many simplified proceedings and it tends in some cases not to easing as such but to oversimplification in criminal proceedings. Legislators also ignore the above criteria of differentiation. So Article 314, Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation allows applying a special (summary) procedure of adjudication of cases including serious crimes and Chapter 40.1 - extremely grievous crimes. This is not consistent with a material legal criterion for differentiation. The investigation of juvenile crimes can take the form of both the preliminary investigation and ordinary enquiry. Contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation substantially extends the list of people for whom the criminal proceedings are complicated to a greater or lesser degree. The range of cases of private prosecution has been considerably narrowed down. The structure of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation lacks logic. For example, Chapter 32.1 located in the second part of the Code “Pre-trial procedure” establishes not only a pre-trial order but the order of a trial. And in contrast: in Chapter 40.1 “A special order of passing a judgment under a pre-trial cooperation agreement” located in the third part of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation “Criminal procedure” the order of making the agreement is defined although this question should be decided at the stage of a preliminary investigation. Frankly speaking, we are returning to those times when “the queen of evidence” was admission of guilt by the accused but this cannot be competent in the criminal procedure of the 21 century.

Keywords

Authors

References