The criminal process is an orderly activity of responsible persons whose main tasks are the establishment of crime events, the search for perpetrators and the collection of evidence. The problem of evidence theory in criminal proceedings plays a special role. In the presence of certain facts indicating the guilt of a person, it is possible to qualitatively form an opinion on the subject of the criminal procedure. Our article will detail the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings.
Characteristic evidence
Evidence in the legal field is called information on facts obtained in the manner prescribed by law. Based on these facts, the presence or absence of fault of the suspected person is determined. They are of paramount importance for the quality consideration and resolution of the case. The proof is the result of cognitive activity. This is a kind of justification for truth.
The procedure is the collection, consolidation, verification and evaluation of evidence. It is fundamental in the general theory of evidence in criminal proceedings. Lawyers have developed a general definition of evidence. This is part of the criminal procedural legal sphere, which is a combination of the same rules. All of them regulate the purpose of the proof, as well as the order of action with the available evidence. Based on the collected materials, conclusions are drawn on the case.
Theories of evidence in criminal proceedings have certain attributes. Firstly, this is a specific functional purpose. It is determined by the task of accurately establishing the factors and circumstances essential for the case. The implementation of this task provides protection of the individual from unreasonable and illegal accusation, conviction or restriction of freedoms and rights. The rights and interests of persons acting as victims of criminal acts are also being protected.
Secondly, the subject of regulation of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings is a certain circle of social relations that develop in connection with procedural evidence. Separation of relations is relative, since it is inextricably linked with other public relations that exist in the field of criminal procedure. Moreover, each subtype of relations has a fairly high degree of specialization.
Thirdly, evidence law has its own internal structure, in which two interrelated areas are distinguished: general and special. They form a system of evidence, which will be discussed later.
Evidence system in domestic criminal trial
The general part of the legal system under consideration includes legal norms that regulate provisions equally applicable to all types of evidence, to their use at all stages of the criminal process and in all cases of a criminal nature. Here it is necessary to single out the purpose and subject of proof, as well as the concept of evidence theory in criminal proceedings. Here are general principles: admissibility, relativity, reliability and sufficiency of existing legal norms.
The special (special) part includes the rules that govern certain types of evidence. These are the features of evidence at some stages of the criminal process and in certain categories of criminal cases. It should highlight the crimes of minors, the compulsory use of medical measures, the work of various judicial structures and so on.
The institutes of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings regulate the rules of conduct for the subjects of the legal industry under consideration, their rights and obligations. This is due to the norms enshrined in article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal proceedings have the following objectives:
- Protection of the individual from unreasonable accusations, restrictions on her freedoms
- Protection of injured persons.
- Criminal prosecution only against perpetrators.
- Appointment of fair punishment.
- Refusal to prosecute innocent, etc.
Achieving all of the above tasks is impossible without the practical application of the foundations of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings.
Evidence theory characterization
Within the framework of criminal law, several scientific areas are distinguished. One of them is called the theory of evidence. This is a science about the formation of facts in a case, as well as about the means that the law allows to use to establish or refute the facts of an event. The courts in this case form the conviction of the guilt or innocence of an individual.
The evidence procedure includes sources, methodological foundations, content and general theory of evidence in criminal proceedings. A procedure is being implemented during an inquiry, trial or preliminary investigation. Proceedings in the theory of evidence represent a significant part of the work in the criminal justice process.
To reaoize the appointment of criminal proceedings, it is necessary:
- To establish the existence of an event for which a criminal case has been formed.
- Find out exactly who committed the criminal act or inaction.
- To establish the guilt of the accused, the motives of his actions, as well as a number of other circumstances characterizing the incident and his instigator.
Evidence helps to generate accurate information about the committed criminal act. Thus, it can be established that there was no crime at all, and the accused person in no way refers to the crime committed.
The main difficulty in the procedure for establishing circumstances is the fact that all events occurred in the past tense. They cannot be repeated with precision. There is only the opportunity to obtain evidence from participants in the event and third parties, as well as to study the items that were involved during the commission of the crime. Such items are called physical evidence.
The study of the circumstances of the criminal case is implemented in a way called retrospoken in philosophical literature. This is a procedure for indirectly obtaining summary knowledge about present or past events.
The main difference between mediated cognition from other research methods is the presence of a framework of law. Upon receipt of certain knowledge, it is possible to use only the means and methods specified in regulatory enactments.
Classification of evidence
All evidence used in criminal proceedings is divided into several groups. According to the first classification, they are personal and material. Personal - this is the testimony of witnesses, victims, accused, suspects, etc. Various documents and expert opinions should also be included here. Material evidence - these are things in the formation of which the human consciousness did not participate. This includes video, audio, photos, various tracks, random things and much more.
The second classification divides the evidence into direct and indirect. Straight lines are those in the content of which is reflected at least one subject of proof or at least one circumstance. Indirect materials contain information about facts that accompanied, preceded or followed an established event.
In addition, the evidence is original and production, acquittal and indictment.
The concept of truth in Russian law
What is truth? This term was enshrined in the Soviet theory of evidence in criminal proceedings. Zhogin Nikolai Venediktovich, a researcher of Soviet jurisprudence, the word "truth" was found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR at least five times. It is known that the Soviet Code was valid in modern Russia. In 2002, it was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which caused serious doubts among scientists and politicians. The problem was focusing on the principles of Anglo-American law, in which evidence was not given much importance.
The means of proof, the obligations of certain entities, the procedural presumption, the procedure for criminal proceedings and the role of individual evidence in the procedure of proof - all this depends on the degree of regulation of the concept of "truth". Despite the absence of a direct reference to this term in the new Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal proceedings are built on the solution of a twofold task: to prevent the prosecution of the innocent and to convict the truly guilty. To solve the set goals, the circumstances of the case must be formed in such a way that they take place in reality, regardless of the desire and will of the knowing person.
The domestic criminal procedure doctrine in the traditional way proceeds from the possibility of forming a really existing correspondence of knowledge of reality, that is, truth. This kind of truth is called objective. Truth, existing only in the consciousness of man, is called subjective. It is not included in the content of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings.
A classic definition of truth was provided by Aristotle: "This is an understanding of the disconnectedness of the disconnected and the connectedness of the connected." In other words, this is a statement of reality. In this regard, many scientists reject the concept of objective truth. They believe that it cannot be available to the court, and it is impossible to achieve full reliability of knowledge.
It is also worth turning to the problem of the theory of evidence in the criminal process of the Anglo-American type. Here, the denial of objective truth is the purpose of the entire procedure of proof. The only criterion for attaining truth is practical activity. This is an objective category beyond human consciousness.
The path to truth through evidence
All the main provisions of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings are associated with the concept of truth. It is necessary for the law enforcer to form a belief in the correctness of his actions, that is, to give them true meaning.
The problem of the content of truth in the criminal process is quite controversial. It is known that absolute truth is complete knowledge of something, and relative truth is true knowledge, but not complete. Any knowledge in this area can be absolute on the one hand, and relative on the other. In this case, the judicial procedure requires the full establishment of the parties to the circumstances that took place in the past and related to the subject of evidence. Other parties, transactions, elements and details must remain unclear.
So, the truth in criminal proceedings will always be absolutely relative. A preponderance in one direction or another will depend only on the completeness of the evidence.
The truth in Russian criminal proceedings
In the legal sphere under consideration, it has some features. The first and most important is the presence of a special subject of knowledge. He is the subject of proof, namely:
- Crime event (place, time, method and circumstances of the crime).
- Guilty face.
- The form of guilt of the face and the motives that moved it.
- Circumstances that characterize the identity of the accused.
- The nature and extent of the harm caused by the crime.
- Mitigating, aggravating and excluding liability circumstances and so on.
The second feature is the presence of special subjects of proof. They are the subjects of criminal proceedings.
Immediately you need to highlight the special methods of evidence, prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The methods are closely related to the means:
- Testimony of persons suspected of committing a crime.
- Testimonies of witnesses, victims, experts and specialists.
- Evidence.
- Records of court hearings, investigative actions, etc.
Considering the methodological basis of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings, it is easy to see that most legal instruments are associated with subjective truth. Objective knowledge is given only by concrete things and phenomena, that is, material evidence.
Truth in criminal proceedings cannot be considered achieved if it is unfounded. This is the most important principle of the presumption of innocence. The following points should also be highlighted here:
- It is not the responsibility of the defendant to prove his innocence.
- The duty to justify the guilt rests with the prosecution.
- The defendant cannot be called guilty until his guilt has been substantiated and proved in court.
- Any doubts about the guilt of a person suspected of committing a criminal offense are interpreted in his favor.
- The conviction cannot be based on assumptions.
To achieve the truth in the court of law, the public prosecutor needs to go through a full, objective and comprehensive study of the conditions and circumstances of the case. From this it follows that the establishment of truth has priority in the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings.
The problem of regulating the truth
No country is interested in acquitting criminals and convicting innocent people. The concept and content of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings does not include the term "truth." At the same time, it is clarified that in criminal proceedings it is extremely important to establish the conditions and circumstances of the case - equally as they were in reality.
The internal conviction of the law enforcer may become the main subject of theoretical consideration in the aspect of the criterion of truth. The same goes for the overlapping beliefs of prosecutors, judges, investigators, and other officials. All of them should be interested in a speedy, high-quality and fair hearing of the case.
Truth should not be limited to stating that the existing knowledge matches the circumstances of the incident. The content of truth includes:
- Conformity of qualification to permissible crime.
- Correspondence of knowledge to the conditions and circumstances of the criminal act.
- Compliance with the sanction imposed and the gravity of the atrocity committed, as well as the identity of the perpetrator.
Truth is material, not formal. It exists regardless of the requirements provided by law. She is always objective. The task of the competent authorities is to establish the objective nature of truth.
The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation contains information on the main methods and means of proof, from which the concept of truth is composed. This is the meaning of the inquiry.
Can we call the problem the lack of clear regulation of the concept under consideration? This question is asked by many experts. The criminal law of many European countries is based only on the concept of truth. The same was true for Soviet regulations. There is certainly a need for regulation. Truth is the most important criterion of evidence law. Lawmakers should keep this in mind.
The problem of the reform of evidence
The most important problem of the last decade is the implementation of reforms in the field of criminal procedure without a sufficient methodological and theoretical basis. Confirmation of this is the protracted improvement of the criminal process, which has been implemented since 1991. Having dealt with the concept of evidence theory in criminal proceedings, you need to pay attention to the problem of modernization of existing legislation.
The last major change occurred in July 2002. Then the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force. All decisions and definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation were taken into account, the possibilities of the accused were expanded, and guarantees for the protection of freedoms and human rights were strengthened. At the same time, some problems were found in the new project.
Experts who provided an analysis of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation announced the presence of negative factors in the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings. The central node of the entire legal proceedings, as well as the forming, moving and essential link, have become a source of heated scientific discussions.In Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that evidence - that is, information about the facts, not the actual data, as stated in the evidence of the theory in the Soviet criminal trial. From this we can conclude that legislators do not give priority to absolute truth.
The problem of relevance of evidence
, . . , , , , , , . , , .
The possibilities of improving the proof procedure are inexhaustible. For its modernization, it is necessary to take into account all the negative facts in the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings. It is necessary to take into account the initial principles and act strictly on their basis.