Criminal law and procedural individualization as a basis for continuing differentiation of the criminal procedure form

The differentiation of the criminal procedure form occupies a significant place in scholarly research, which has yielded extensive results defining the essence of the form, approaches to its development, and directions for differentiation, among other aspects. At the same time, several questions of theoretical, legislative, and practical importance remain unanswered: 1) Is it possible to continue the differentiation of the form, or does it have certain limits? 2) How can the boundaries of the procedural form be determined, particularly in light of the growing trend toward its differentiation? 3) Do quantitative and qualitative limits of the procedural form exist? 4) What role does the detailing of the criminal procedure form play in its differentiation? The search for answers to these questions represents a matter of significant scholarly interest. Differentiation of the criminal procedure form is occurring extensively, through a quantitative increase in minimally distinct forms. Analysis of existing scholarly works in this area reveals a multitude of perspectives concerning the differentiation of the criminal procedure form as a whole, its individual forms designed for application in specific situations, and proposals for the hyper-fragmentation of the procedural form, where minor adjustments to procedural details are treated as differentiation, among other issues. The trend toward detailing the criminal procedure form and its normative consolidation raises serious concerns that variable procedures may lose their constructive properties and transform into their antithesis-forms that excessively complicate criminal proceedings, leading to unjustified expenditures of time, effort, and resources, including financial ones. It is also evident that this will objectively result in an increase in the duration of criminal proceedings. Among the problems arising from the formal detailing of the criminal procedure form, scholars point to systemic overload, where investigators and judges become unable to adequately manage the "deluge" of cases that consequently falls upon them. The author concludes that, at present, the continued detailing of the criminal procedure form largely acts as a destructive factor, and its further improvement must proceed on different foundations and assume a new direction. As a potential alternative direction for the development of the domestic criminal procedure form, it is proposed to consider the idea of individualization. The author's position, grounded in the identified inherent interconnection between criminal-law individualization and the criminal procedure form, offers an opportunity to view the differentiation of this form from a new perspective. Acknowledging the existence of procedural individualization, elucidating it, and advancing its scholarly development can define a new direction in the differentiation of the criminal procedure form and provide objective answers to significant questions regarding the improvement of criminal proceedings as a whole. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References