Состязательный характер уголовного процесса: проблемные аспекты

Abstract

The relevance of the research is due to the existing contradictions between the theoretical model of adversarial nature and the practice of its implementation in the criminal procedure of Russia. The legislative regulation of this principle does not allow us to say that it is effective in the course of practical activity. The purpose of the research is to consider the operation of the principle of adversarial nature at various stages of the criminal procedure, as well as the theoretical concepts of its strengthening in the criminal procedure. The objectives of the research: to conduct a retrospective research of the implementation of the principle of competition in the criminal procedure of Russia, to consider various approaches to the definition of competition, to analyze proposals for strengthening competition in the criminal procedure of Russia. Methodology. Methodological basis of research is a general scientific dialectical method as a method of scientific knowledge; a systematic approach to the problem, historical method, formal-logical method, etc. Results. The strengths and weaknesses of the adversarial criminal procedure were identified, the possibility of introducing a lawyer's investigation, reviving the institute of investigative judges, creating a special court apparatus to ensure the independence of judges was considered. Conclusion. The existing criminal procedure system has long been formed in the conditions of authoritarian state power, which has left its mark on the operation of the principle of competition in the criminal procedure of Russia. Its manifestation to a greater extent at the trial stage is due to the presence only at this stage of an independent subject in the form of a judge, who can provide equal opportunities for the prosecution and the defense to participate in the consideration of a criminal case. In addition, there is no conceptual contradiction to the principle of competition in the fact that the presiding judge can act actively because the law imposes on him responsibility for the justice of the sentence. At the pre-trial stages, there is no such independent body, although it is necessary for the objective establishment of all the circumstances of the incident.