Jurors who are they? Court of
which swore an oath to justice Every time when you are in the hall of court sessions you hope that the representative of justice dressed in a cloak also is quintessence of justice. That it will have enough wisdom to make the decision not only corresponding to a law letter, but also coordinated in inconsistent subtleties of different precepts of law. Such decision - which would satisfy both parties and considered legal concerns and justice.
Every time, understanding on behavior of the judge that procedure begins it is banal to be filled up towards bias, - you look around and you look for - in what corner justice hid here. It by definition somewhere has to be near. Let not in actions and words of the judge. But somewhere nearby at distance of the given hand.
Old hackneyed dilemma: the judicial system through the law takes the maximum measures to be fair, but for this purpose at least it is required that also the law was fair. And for this purpose - that the legislator had an exact and thin idea of justice … And all this rhetoric comes to an end with failure at one of stages where did not understand all sides of right use of justice. As a result appeared before the court to fall a victim of a miscarriage of justice. And our judicial system is constructed so that one mistake can pass into system. - Then all instances begin to repeat one and a touch to the logician of a mistake which was made right at the beginning.
The idealist - the theorist from the right Hegel declared in due time that the state has to select and monopolize the right to sweep for a crime in the hands. Otherwise, only the state has the right to punish, tear to pieces and punish for the crime committed in its territory and against its laws. The power world almost completely accepted this position and now nobody (under the hand-written law) can be responsible for the crime differently, than through official court. “Blood feud“, “mob killings“ - is considered that it is only past costs which by itself have to disappear over time.
“Almost completely“ it means that the state could not usurp completely the right of condemnation for a crime. All is known that the state is part of society. Society - all this and TOGETHER, and the state only a set of power institutes and that temporary. There are no eternal states. Still the eternal and unshakable secular law is not thought up. There is no power which would not be transformed over time. “Everything flows and everything changes“ are words of Konstantin Zakonodatel and - probably is more visible to the creator of the constitution of the Roman right. Possibly, still then from time immemorial he understood that its code of laws is not eternal and day will come when society rejects it as the fulfilled and outdated product of jurisdiction aside.
Society reserved the right to manage court and to influence justice. It is called in judicial system - a jury. But actually always in the history of the state Russian the jury was perceived not only and a little as part of judicial authority, and as part of independent public institute.
Even before October revolution the jury was perceived as an opportunity to tell what is necessary and it is important. In the same place each juror understood that over him in the hall of court sessions nobody is imperious: it cannot be bent, izbichevat, izmordovat. Here and now - IT as the judicial assessor the director of justice. Later it was strongly distorted by class ideology and to us moved under another is working - country sauce. But the essence remained an essence - everyone on a bench of jurors perceived himself completely free in the understanding of justice and its application. Wrote about it Horses and tried to defend need of preservation of a jury in Russia. But it was slammed also an occasion as we know from history there was the well-known court over V. Zasulich which shot in Moscow the general - the governor from - for the fact that it was cruel on punishment. The verdict of jurors shocked the power: “the general - the governor constantly cruelly punished convicts for small crimes. The act Zasulich is worthy justifications because cruel castigation of one of petty criminals, almost to death with which it was not familiar became a reason for its actions“.
Such or similar verdicts there was by the time of closing of juries a set and it irritated the power, breaking her immemorial desire to dominate everywhere even in the hall of court session.
Now we should be trained according to textbooks of the beginning of last century, is concerning a jury. We lost and spent historical memory of it and now with great difficulty over time and attempts we try to understand what really is a jury and as to use it. Certain similarity of it at us existed: “friendly court“ and “court of officer honor“. But it was fiction. The case when for a small offense the Court of officer honor concerning one of colleagues was called is remembered and it in a volley failed the chief`s task - to punish and punish. Too small and insignificant object was set also business even not in protection of official authority and solidarity. Did not put to such body to touch the soiled toilet paper … It was necessary to the chief ignoring judgments samolichno to write the scary order on disciplinary punishment.
A few state from a justice chair was removed, having released a chair edge for a jury. But also in this case its position is not absolutely clear. Are given to competence of a jury only especially heavy a crime. That is, - “dear citizens“ here to you murderers of all colors, extremists and terrorists - tear them to pieces, beat with numerous volumes of criminal cases a nape and you judge.
Both the statistics, and polls of the former judicial jurors show that each person very responsibly approaches the duty imposed on him. It is reflected in its mentality in the sense that the person then begins to perceive literally “skin“ provisions of the law, morals and justice later. The same courts the juror introduce new understanding in application of the right by vessels. Because unlike usual court - the jury is the carrier of public understanding of a crime and punishment for it. Not each actual murderer can be recognized as the murderer legally.
I remember a case when the murderer was released by the staff of criminal investigation department. It was the former recidivist who several times stayed in prisons but then decided to live as the normal person. It seems, he addressed to some school or the house of pioneers and began to conduct a circle on playing a bayan. Once to the house two girlfriends - young children did not reach. And in the morning their raped corpses found in a forest plantation. He addressed thieves` brotherhood that found or prompted - who? Prompted. And it personally cut those morons. It was caught by the staff of criminal investigation department and when he told everything to them and provided proofs that they raped and killed girls. - It was released, but explained that give odds in only one days, and then search and a pursuit in due form. Again will catch - his grief and a capital punishment, will be able to leave - his happiness. Caught up with it or not - not an essence important. Important another - it was given chance as jurors give “it is worthy indulgences“. It under those laws could not and had no right to justify … As now would allow this business, - perhaps you should not guess. Perhaps, the jury would justify because now society perceives as need to punish nearly namest of those who with special cruelty concerns to children.
The difficult task exists now: to make of the slave free, - to turn court into independent. The set of ways is declared. But one of them - a jury stands aside. And by the way it is very powerful spring which can give an impetus. But so far he is unfairly very strongly limited in the rights and opportunities. Why by the way the jury as final judicial authority can consider only especially dangerous crimes? At us many other categories of affairs which frankly slip in vessels of independently general jurisdiction (civil, criminal) or arbitration court.
Whether it is possible to bring criminal case concerning the official, the deputy, the judge and to expect complete and impartial examination in court? Answer: so far not, if only big uncles in terrible shoulder straps did not catch by a hand at taking of a bribe. And here other categories of criminal offenses - economic, against the personality … Remain outside punishment. If such state of affairs takes place - means it is worth expanding powers of a jury concerning malfeasances. Otherwise we will never be able to find a justice on officials, deputies and judges. “The raven will not befoul a crow of eyes“. Means, - this category of affairs has to be unambiguously transferred to court of society and according to a jury. It is necessary to add to the same category both “fourth estate“ - journalism and mass media. On the one hand, excess of the rights of the journalist became mass when very few people stop not to cover the public personality, on the other hand - magistrates very fast on punishment also ignore the right for personal opinion of the journalist. That is it turns out what it is possible to lie in mass media and air, and the truth cannot be spoken about embezzlers of public funds and embezzlers.
Jurors have to participate not only by consideration of criminal cases, but also civil when questions concern interests of the power again. There is no guarantee yet that the individual judge will be able to consider case impartially - it is necessary to transfer such doubt to jurors. Let jurors make the decision legally or not tariffs for utilities were increased whether the tender or a competition is lawfully held whether the deputy is worthy to hide behind parliamentary immunity or it is really political provocation. - Of course, it will expand participation of a jury in procedure not only as the body the rendering final verdict, but also will make it decisive on another process stages.
It is necessary to liquidate very big and essential distortion in criminal proceedings - recognition of admissibility of proofs. Now the investigators processing criminal case usurped the right of making decision on familiarizing of proofs and purpose of examinations. “It is not necessary to me, and it is useful. This examination will help me, and this is will tighten production“. What can be the speech about comprehensive and full investigation of criminal case when the investigator has the right to wave away from direct and necessary proofs? And this distortion can be solved preliminary court session of jurors on which the analysis of admissibility of proofs is made and the issue of additional collecting necessary proofs is resolved. at us many can collect by
Under the law owing to the situation proofs: lawyers, human rights activists, private detectives, journalists. And what with them to do is farther? - if the question of excitement even of an obvious crime is jammed in corridors of competent authorities. And as always it concerns officials of all ranks, again deputies and again the same employees of competent authorities and judges. So let the jury also solves: whether a certain delicate question in investigation is worthy, - unless it will prevent someone in implementation of fair and independent legal proceedings? It will only limit despotism of the power in all branches.
Clear business that it is impossible to submit to a jury all categories of affairs and is not necessary. In most cases as do not twist it has to do everything - the professional judge. But when there is a large number “but“, the final answer nevertheless remains behind society. One of slogans of the Parisian revolution was: “La of hulks privilezh!“ (Down with privileges!) . So far our power will have a privilege in the form of dependent court until the power in the form of a number of government bodies conducts fight with variable progress with monopolists and cartel arrangements without participation in it of institutes of society, - at least in the form of the same jury with the directed category - criminal, civil and on economic disputes, - we will not feel confidence that Themis`s representative dressed in a cloak is one of justice sides.
Independence of the Russian justice system is also persistently called into question long ago by the European Court on protection of Human rights and recently the section across Russia even ceased to accept affairs if the defendant did not petition for consideration of the case in a jury. The same court made the decision that the supervising judicial instance in Russia in general is incapacitated long ago - it is not means of effective protection. Because the supervising instance practically does not exist. And the most effective way of protection of the interests in court - the fullest use of a jury. But not only that it at us still the young child, and is cut strongly down in the rights. Why the blood-thirsty murderer and the tyrant can hope for indulgence, and I as the journalist involved for an insult in mass media have to observe as by me with a sentence the magistrate promptly rushes? It turns out that to deserve to me it is necessary to cut indulgence at delivery of articles also half-edition with the antiquated razor?
You know as in advertizing - “demand in shops of your city“. And you irrespective of live in city or rural areas - demand without regard to faces of implementation of justice by means of a jury. No doubt, - you will be accused of incompetence and illiteracy because the jury considers only cases on especially serious crimes. But water sharpens a stone, - and God grant, - competence of a jury will be in the future expanded with such side-altars that it to us will terribly not go to court on a meeting with the judge - the know-it-all, and there we will be expected by the same “people from the people“ as well as ourselves … Besides may be that it is necessary to address later to ECHR and if in business there is no petition about consideration by its jury, - that the ECHR can refuse reception of the complaint because all means of protection were not used.