Open AccessThe Forms of Criminal Prosecution
Author(s) -
Ilya Dikarev,
Sailaubek Baymanov
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pravovaâ paradigma
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2587-6899
pISSN - 2587-8115
DOI - 10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2021.3.25
Subject(s) - criminal procedure , false accusation , conviction , criminal investigation , subject (documents) , law , dialectic , political science , reasonable doubt , position (finance) , adversarial system , psychology , criminology , epistemology , philosophy , computer science , business , finance , library science
the paper discusses the possibility of differentiating the forms of criminal prosecution. The critical analysis is subject to the widespread position in the science of criminal procedure that the forms of criminal prosecution are suspicion and accusation. This point of view is based on the conclusion that the content of criminal prosecution varies depending on the degree of proof of the guilt of the person subject to criminal prosecution. Concerning compliance with the principle of adversarial parties, the theoretical position is also evaluated, according to which one of the forms of criminal prosecution is conviction. The question of the grounds for differentiating the forms of criminal prosecution is studied. Purpose: the confirming the unified nature of the criminal prosecution carried out during the pretrial proceedings, regardless of the procedural position of the person accused of committing the crime. Methods: the paper uses the general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, a systematic approach, as well as specific scientific methods: legal interpretation and logical-legal. The methodological framework was the dialectical method. Results: the study of the common position in the science of criminal procedure, according to which criminal prosecution at different stages of its implementation consistently takes the forms of suspicion and accusation, showed its inconsistency. From the standpoint of philosophy, the content always has a determining value, and the form is always determined. Accordingly, to establish a change in the form of criminal prosecution, it is necessary to make sure that the content of this activity changes. However, the degree of proof of the person’s involvement in the crime is not reflected in the content of the accusatory activity, it remains the same. Therefore, suspicion and accusation do not form the independent forms of criminal prosecution. At the same time, the differentiation of the forms of criminal prosecution is possible, but on different grounds. Conclusions: the differentiation of the forms of criminal prosecution should be made depending on, first, the organization of procedural activities that determine the role and powers of the subject of criminal prosecution in the process of proof; secondly, the procedural status of the participant in the criminal process on the part of the prosecution and, thirdly, the content of the fact in issue.