Initiation of Criminal Proceedings and Validity of Criminal Prosecution

Abstract

The author comes to the conclusion that the construction of a criminal justice system based on expediency is necessary in modern conditions of humanization of legislation, economy of repression and optimization of criminal proceedings. Expediency as a condition for making procedural decisions should also be applied at the stage of checking the report of a crime when deciding whether to initiate criminal proceedings. It is necessary to grant such powers to the Prosecutor, returning to him, among other things, other powers to direct the preliminary investigation. A reasonable balance between public and private interests, as determined by the Prosecutor in each particular case, should be the basis for determining the criteria for the appropriateness of criminal prosecution. The Prosecutor's assessment activity in this situation should be based on his inner conviction and conscience and consist in determining the degree to which the interests of society and participants in the criminal law conflict correspond to possible criminal prosecution and its consequences, on the one hand, and the use of alternative measures to respond to the crime committed, on the other. To do this, the Prosecutor must be provided with flexible procedural tools. Refusal to initiate criminal proceedings and use alternative measures is necessary in cases where the burden of investigating the crime is not comparable with the result obtained, the person has ceased to be a public danger and has made amends for the damage caused. The grounds for refusing to initiate criminal proceedings and applying alternative measures may be reconciliation of participants in a criminal law conflict, active remorse, making amends for the harm caused by the crime, or changing the situation. Refusal to initiate criminal proceedings and the use of alternative measures should not significantly affect the legal interests of participants in the criminal conflict.