Interrelation of the concepts aim and task in criminal procedure

Terms aim and task are used in different fields of research in criminal procedure as both aims and tasks that determine its general orientation. But scientists, specializing in the sphere of criminal procedure, traditionally have no common opinion on the interrelation of these terms. Some of them state that in the absence of background for the uniform differentiation of the concepts aim and task, all the attempts to formulate the 2 systems of suitable categories of aims and tasks in the theory of criminal procedure and, what is more, in legislature can be considered unjustified. Other scientists think that it is necessary to differentiate the concepts aim and task in criminal procedure clearly. For the purpose of appreciating the validity of each point of view the author of the given article analyses the philosophical understanding of the category of aim, the understanding of terms aim and task and their interrelation in psychology, the understanding of these terms and their interrelation in the Russian language dictionary; the provisions of criminal procedural legislation of both Russia and former Soviet republics. The philosophical understanding of the category of aim has been revealed in the course of analysing the definition of the term aim produced in philosophical dictionaries of both Soviet and modern Russian periods; it turned out that the term task is not considered as a separate philosophical category in them, there is no special and separate definition of this term there. It has been examined that in psychological dictionaries of both Soviet and modern Russian periods, in the works devoted to the psychological theory of activity, and in the Russian language dictionary terms aim and task denote practically the same phenomena, which stimulate and direct human activity. In the criminal procedural legislation of both Russia and former Soviet republics terms aim and task are either not used at all or only the term task is used in the above mentioned sense which does not provide us with arguments to ground the opinion about the necessity to differentiate the notions aim and task in criminal procedure. We can come to a conclusion that according to the analysis given in the present article there are no reasons for the uniform differentiation of the notions aim and task in criminal procedure. These terms should be understood as synonyms. To avoid the confusion in the usage of these words in theory and practice of criminal procedure it is more preferable to use the term task as it is more settled in usage and accessible for understanding. It should definitely be borne in mind that criminal procedure like any complicated type of activity is subjected not only to one task but also to a complex of interrelated and diverse tasks.

Keywords

Authors

References