Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
344082
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Methodology and Psychological Knowledge Issues in the Procedural Differentiation Sphere and the Evidence Doctrine: Problems of Theory and Legislation

Methodology and Psychological Knowledge Issues in the Procedural Differentiation Sphere and the Evidence Doctrine: Problems of Theory and Legislation

Journal of Economic Regulation, , Vol. 7 (no. 3),

The paper is devoted to actual problems of the theory and legislation of the modern criminal trial based on provisions of differentiation of a procedural form. Its basic provisions belong also to questions of evidentiary activity. Characteristics of knowledge on criminal case will claim the psychological knowledge and categories included in the mechanism of legal regulation of criminal procedure activity. Key role is allocated for the principle of freedom of an assessment of proofs. In this case the assessment of proofs is carried out on internal belief. Historically it is connected with institute of jury trial and competitiveness. Both the principle of freedom of assessment of proofs, and many other provisions of the procedural theory and the legislation need interpretation and an explanation with use of modern psychological knowledge.
 
At the same time in modern Russian criminal procedure as well as in foreign types of criminal trial the reduced summary or special procedural jurisdictions are actively applied. It means formation of the differentiated model of criminal legal proceedings at which there is a summary process. Simplification of an order of proof on a criminal case through a wide range of exceptions is characteristic of them that constitutes a theoretical and practical problem. At their decision it is necessary to use a modern arsenal of methodology and the theory, including new achievements in the field of psychological knowledge.


Keywords: criminal trial; procedural order; differentiation; proofs; judicial psychology; internal belief.

References:
  • Dobrovol’skaya T. N. and Elkind P. S. (1976). Criminal Procedural Form, Procedure and Production. Legal Procedure Form. Theory and Practice. Moscow. (In Russian).
  • Enikeev M. I. (2010). Legal psychology. Textbook. Moscow, 335 p. (In Russian).Foynitsky I. Ya. (1996). Course of Criminal Legal Proceedings, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, Alpha Publ. (In Russian).
  • Hatchard J., Huber B. and Vogler R. (1996). Comparative Criminal Procedure. London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
  • Jakub M. L. (1981). Procedural Form in the Soviet Criminal Proceedings Moscow. (In Russian).
  • Orlov Y. K. (2000). Bases of the Theory of Proofs in Criminal Procedure. Scientific and Practical Guide. Moscow, 144 p. (In Russian).
  • Pashkevych P. F. (1984). Procedure Act and Efficiency of Criminal Proceedings. Moscow. (In Russian).
  • Reznik G. M. (1977). Internal Belief at an Assessment of Proofs. Moscow, «Legal Literature» Publ. (In Russian).
  • Stojko N. G. (2007). Criminal Proceedings of Western States and Russia: A Comparative Theoretical and Legal Research of Anglo-American and Romano- Germanic Legal Systems. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
  • Strogovich M. S. (1963). The Course of the Soviet Criminal Trial. Vol. 1-2. Moscow. (In Russian).
  • The Theory of Proofs in the Soviet Criminal Trial (1973). / Ed by N. V. Zhogin. Moscow. (In Russian).
  • Tsiganenko S. S. (2004). General and Differentiated Orders of Criminal Proceedings. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online ISSN: 2412-6047
ISSN: 2078-5429