Reform of the criminal law - a humanization and liberalization?
Due to the reform of the criminal legislation various changes, at first sight, it seems even reasonable are regularly made to the criminal code of the Russian Federation the last several years. As the basis of carrying out reform by the power the tendency to a humanization of the criminal act of the Russian Federation is sounded. But whether actually a lot of things changed? to
Yes, without any doubts, for a potato bag will already hardly impose the sentence connected with imprisonment. Also it is also improbable to get the real term of imprisonment for the crimes of small or average weight made for the first time owing to delusion or combination of circumstances, and it is natural, in the absence of unspent convictions. The court had more space for maneuver, there was an opportunity not to put the person for any nonsense formally suitable under signs of concrete corpus delicti. Generally, if earlier the court could impose sentence below the lowest limit the provided article of the Criminal Code of the sanction, and only in the presence in the circumstances extenuating fault, now these lowest limits practically everywhere are absent, and, respectively, many criminal actions, regarding assignment of punishment, can be considered by court within the sanction of the new criminal law from zero, that is from an opportunity to impose the alternative sentence which is not connected with direct imprisonment.
In the text of the law everything is remarkable. As alternative punishment forced labor appeared, in Soviet period it was called chemistry. The law became really softer, there was a possibility of more adequate assessment of a crime, and the criminal can receive the punishment corresponding to the consequences which were caused act and degree of public danger. But whether the new law fully works?
As far as I understand a situation, the main problem of domestic legal proceedings is not the text of the law, but structure of court where the court and charge directly depend from each other. Charge is engaged in providing proofs, the court of the proof estimates, often adhering to a charge position.
It is difficult to me to say for what reasons so occurs. Perhaps the matter is that some judges prosecutors in the past, and in prosecutor`s office - there are a lot of future judges. Anyway, and the court and prosecutor`s office at us are too closely connected. As a result the defendant if he has no money, is almost doomed in our court just because acts in the protection independently. No, of course, the state provides it the defender and as if everything is honest, but upon the free defender, as a rule, just is present at process for show - that is is formal, and does not penetrate into case papers. Also leaves so that many receive terms for the legal illiteracy.
Also, in my opinion, a problem of our laws in instruments of their application where the main basis of the resolution of a conviction often is the internal belief of court which cannot be challenged in a cassation order, and about an essence of this belief nobody, except the judge who pronounced a sentence ever learns. That is the judge has an opportunity to make decisions, referring to this most internal belief which is formed during court session and when studying materials of criminal case which are created by inquiry or a consequence, and are checked and brought by prosecutor`s office to trial. At the same time the court to anybody for the belief should not report.
Moreover, the judge in general practically does not bear responsibility for the pronounced sentence. In what production there can be a qualitative result where the producer is not responsible for the production at all?! The most important for court - it is formal to prove a sentence on each point, and then the judge is covered from all directions, and it is some opportunities for such justification in our UK and the Criminal Procedure Code. It is a pity that the broken human destiny can become result of poor quality of work.
A conclusion arises such that while nobody bears responsibility for the made decisions and while the verdict of not guilty in our country is a miracle, just because it is a stone in a kitchen garden of a consequence and charge, the laws directed to a humanization, liberalization, etc. simply will not work fully.
And one more aspect which wants to concern is a situation with those who were condemned before modification of UK and who serve the sentence imposed by court. Under the law, on the basis of article 10 of the criminal code of Russian Federation, all earlier passed judgments under articles which underwent change in the party, favorable for the convict, are subject to revision, and those who writes applications for revision of sentences, these sentences usually reconsider. A question only in how it occurs.
Present a situation where there is a convict serving sentence in other region which wants to submit the application for revision of a sentence on the basis of Art. 10 of the criminal code of Russian Federation. This petition is filed a lawsuit in the place of serving sentence and in the place, that is in local court, this petition is considered. But the copies of all judgments on business which are appropriately issued by office of that court which made these decisions that is at first are necessary for the convict for submission of the petition it is necessary to request these documents in court where the person was condemned. Obtaining the necessary copies is a minimum one or two months of time. Then submission of the petition and setting a date of consideration are one and a half more - two months. Further the petition is satisfied, not always in court of the first instance, but satisfied, and terms of punishments decrease, but formally and very slightly. For example, on a month of imprisonment under each article or an episode.
But at the same time those people who were condemned after acceptance of changes in the criminal law under similar articles receive or incommensurably smaller terms of punishment, or in general the sentence connected with restriction of freedom is imposed to them. That is those who are already condemned before modification of UK are as if guilty that they committed crimes earlier, and for it have to sit more? And how then equality of all before the law and an essence 10 - y articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation where it is told that the law has retroactive force if it provides improvement of the situation of the convict?
Generally, everywhere a formalism and bureaucracy, and absence at people of a habit and desire to normally do the work is equal. And therefore reforms of the criminal law, in that appearance which we have now some vague measures for the efficiency though sounds, of course, beautifully - liberalization, a humanization... In my opinion, here it is necessary not only to reform the law, and in general all system - court, charge, protection. There is no competitiveness in our vessels.