Termination of Criminal Proceedings on Dispositive Grounds: Compromise or Forgiveness?

Abstract

Introduction. The current period of development of the Russian Federation is characterised by the humanisation of criminal law policy, which requires the optimisation of the application of criminal repression measures. The conviction of a person and the imposition of criminal punishment to him ceases to be considered as the only possible outcome of criminal proceedings. The cessation of criminal proceedings on non-rehabilitating grounds in many cases is a sufficient preventive means to force the accused to abandon committing new crimes in the future – recidivism. In this way, criminal repression measures are saved, and the number of convicted persons is reduced, which is certainly a positive social factor. The current criminal procedure law provides for several discretionary grounds for the termination of criminal proceedings. At the same time, the legal nature of these grounds has not received an unequivocal interpretation in science. The nature of the discretionary grounds for the termination of criminal proceedings as a compromise between the parties to the prosecution and the defense has gained some traction among the procedural experts. However, the concept of compromise is rather controversial and does not fully correspond to the purpose of criminal proceedings. The alternative concept of leniency should be analysed as a basis for ending prosecutions on discretionary grounds. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The aim of the study is to develop a conceptual basis for the termination of criminal proceedings, based on the appointment of criminal proceedings and socio-political factors that determine the normative regulation of criminal procedure. The objectives of the study are: a critical analysis of theoretical approaches that reveal the essence of ending criminal prosecution on discretionary grounds, and the formulation of the author’s concept of ending criminal prosecution. The study is based on the dialectical-materialistic method, which involves studying all aspects of the phenomenon in question, taking into account mutual ties and interdependencies. Methods such as formal legal, deductions and induction, analysis and synthesis were also used. Results. The legal essence of the discretionary grounds cannot be regarded as a compromise, since in this case the same social value of the interests belonging to the victim and the accused is recognised. It is all the more unacceptable to regard as a compromise the activities of the accused that facilitate the conduct of the proceedings, since this interpretation indicates the self-worth of the procedural rules, which is contrary to the purpose of criminal proceedings. The discretionary grounds for the termination of criminal proceedings constitute a degree of forgiveness by the State of the accused because of his positive post-criminal behaviour. Accordingly, the dismissal of a criminal case on these grounds should be carried out against defendants who have committed a crime under the influence of a specific situation and do not have a persistent anti-social attitude. Discussion and Conclusion. The article critically analyses the main provisions of the concept of compromise as the basis for the termination of a criminal case, and provides arguments in favour of the concept of forgiveness. In this way, directions are outlined for continuing the discussion on this issue.