Bozrov Vladimir Mairovich Biography

BORZROV Vladimir MAIROVICH, Head of the Department of Judicial Activities of the Ural State Law Academy, Doctor of Law, Professor, Federal Judge of the Higher qualification class, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Laureate of Femida Prize The problem of justice in criminal cases. The stolen tens of millions of state money was condemned conditionally.

Such examples of anti -legal vascular are unfortunately not single. In this regard, a completely natural question arises: who, when and by what rules did the standard of justice for ships, including the courts of the entire world community created? The answer to this question is especially relevant at the present stage of maximum globalization of justiceing. Justice, since it is proclaimed an integral component of criminal justice, [3] should in this case be a single concept on all continents for all mankind, regardless of time, nationality, religion, etc.

It should then be real, objective, proved, concrete, and not an illusory-abstract, so that both Tungus and a friend of the steppes-Kalmyk perceive this justice equally as the sun, moon, water, air, color and smells. Only under this condition can justice be considered the dominant of justice anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, despite the abundance of international legal acts on this subject, [4] to achieve a single understanding of justice turned out to be arch-wording, in connection with which fair justice, not only in Russia, but throughout the world, is more like an intersection with a dull traffic light, the correctness of which everyone determines by virtue of the level of their own colorfulness.

There is no need to go far for examples. So, in the newspaper "Top Secret" under the title "The Most Human Court in the World" published the following. In the north of Afghanistan, the Taliban publicly scored a couple in love with stones - a 28 year old man and a summerly engaged woman. Young people were publicly executed on Bazarny Square. The execution occurred a week after the Taliban was publicly collected in the northwest of Afghanistan, and then they shot a woman who, according to the conclusion of the Sharia court, became pregnant as a result of adultery.

Having approved the “justice in Taliban,” the clergymen of Afghanistan demanded that the authorities return the laws of Sharia, and with them the death penalty. Having accepted this call as a guide to action, the Taliban in the territories controlled by them began to introduce a parallel legal system based on the strict norms of the Sharia. You can object, they say, the Taliban and the clergy do not represent state power at the moment.

The remark is true. However, it is also undoubted that the basis of such examples of “justice” is a variety of ideas about it in Afghan society, and in the case of the capture of the Taliban, their criteria will develop into an official criminal policy, and, therefore, judicial practice, as it happened, for example in Iraq: the supreme judge of Iraq “fairly” was sentenced to the death penalty of those that he, in turn, is also “fairly” “fairly” He sent to prison.

There are many such system -forming examples in world history, which indicates the subjective, and not the legal character of the category of justice, of its derivation from politics in general and criminal - in particular. For example, for Nigeria and the United States, unlike most European countries, the death penalty quite fits into their ideas about fair retribution.

And this is explainable. So, in Nigeria, despite the protests of the world community, nine activists of the movement for the rights of national minorities and ecologists were hung in the year, among whom was the famous writer and public figure, prominent ecologist, laureate of many international prizes Kennas Raviv, nominated to the Nobel Prize of the world in the g. Nigeria bandits, robbers, killers convicted of execution have been waiting for the execution of the sentence for years.

In the USA, too, they are executed. However, it seems to me that they are more concerned about not justice of retribution, but its economic component, since the death penalty there is cheaper than a lifelong conclusion. At the same time, in the United States, not in all states there is a punishment. Probably here, too, intervened with disagreement in the definition of social values ​​about good and evil.

So, what is justice in criminal justice? To this question, everyone will give their own, as it seems to him, the only correct answer. Moreover, the scatter of scientists on this problem is so striking that it is a certain complexity to find between them. For example, by the deep conviction of some, "today in Russia there is no justice and judicial justice." Or maybe the one and the other together?

On this occasion, it is appropriate to refer to Art.Without begging the significance of the commented document, I could not refrain from comments that in this case we are dealing with the declarative norm, which is based on universally recognized human values, and not the formula of law. In support of this thesis, I consider it appropriate to refer to section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America, in which the law and justice are represented as two independent value categories of justice.

If we abstract from what has been said and take the position of respected colleagues, defending the legal nature of justice in justice, then as a result of such a curtsy will certainly arise the problem of evidence of justice and means of its achievement. This is first. Secondly, it will be necessary to include justice among the circumstances to be proved in the criminal case.

Thirdly, there will be a need to disclose justice in Art. Otherwise, the meaning is lost by the lawsuit by the court of the category of law. However, is it possible to resolve these issues in a situation where the court and the parties have its own idea of ​​justice, and the law does not call it objective criteria? The legislator seems to have made an attempt to solve the problem, obliging in Part, in the case of interpreting the term “foundation” in analogy with the “grounds for initiating a criminal case”, it means a set of objective facts.

Hence, according to elementary logic, justice substantiated by them should also be an objective category, that is, proved, and not subjective - evaluative, which is conflicting with the facts of objective reality. It can be assumed that in criminal proceedings the category of justice in its essence is most characterized by substantive, not procedural law, and therefore its content is enshrined in Art.

One can agree with such an argument, but only partly, since in the named norm we are only talking about punishment. But then how to be with the right to fair trial or the fair application of one or another measure of procedural coercion, and first of all, the measures of suppression, although not criminal punishment, however, the legitimacy of which in this case should also be ensured by fair justice?

Is justice to ignore their attention? Or is the principle of double standards established for modern Russian justice? Efforts to find exhaustive answers to these and other questions of the designated problem within a short performance are nothing more than in vain, and therefore it is forced to limit myself to a brief analysis of some of its etiological aspects. The problem of justice in general, its content, properties and criteria is the subject of discussion since the time of Pythagoras of Samos.

If you believe biblical mythology, then Jesus Christ, who gave each participant in grape cleaning, added the oil into the fire of eternal disputes. This discussion continues the current generation of philosophers. At the same time, philosophical duels on this occasion gradually leaked into the sphere of law. In everyday life, we often use the term “justice”, bringing it as a criterion in assessing certain actions of officials or private individuals, as well as in many other cases.

If the criminal is prosecuted, it is customary to say that this is fair, and when condemning the innocent, we note injustice. Justice is perceived as the concept of proper, it is associated with historically changing ideas about the inalienable human rights. In the role of the category of public consciousness, justice covers the ratio of the real significance of various individuals of social groups and their social status, their rights and obligations, acts and retribution, labor and remuneration, and so on justice usually include the idea of ​​the equality of all members of society in their relation to material benefits and man to man.

Any discrepancy in these ratios is mostly evaluated as injustice. Kan, when they face a real or imaginary example of injustice. ” Martyshin, in a developed society, acquire a political character, are mediated by politics. ” Rabtsevich, it is abstract, needs specific incarnations and therefore can have several meanings. Firstly, justice acts as a certain ideal value, the concept of how it should be.

Secondly, justice can be identified with the truth. Thirdly, the concept considered can be used to indicate the totality of ideal, that is, the desired patterns of social interaction as people should interact with each other. In this sense, the term social justice can still be used. In the dialogue of Plato "Fedr" Socrates asks the question: “And if anyone gives justice and good?

Does everyone do not interpret them in his own way, and aren't we diverging with each other here and with ourselves? At the same time, he does not deny the relationship of equality and justice: “According to the general view, justice is such an equality ... Equal must have equal.” Plaps’s performances on this subject are also based on the Christian principle of love for his neighbor.

The Great Roman argued that the achievement of absolute justice is hardly possible, our attempts to enjoy exceptional justice are in vain, because "we have no genuine and clear representation ... about real justice, and we use only a shadow and outlines." According to Art. Thus, these legal norms as a criterion of justice refer to justice itself, freely or involuntarily raising it, unlike the views of Cicero, to the level of an absolute legal category, which must necessarily triumph in the process of sending justice and find its expression in the verdict.

In legal science, there is also no unity of opinions on this subject. Some scientists believe that justice characterizes the verdict only from the moral side. It acts as a moral assessment in the eyes of society and should be a reflection of social justice. However, a legitimate and reasonable sentence, they believe, may not always be fair.

For example, if the current applied criminal law no longer meets social needs. The law may not reflect the changed moral and legal views of society. The verdict that meets the requirement of justice is stated by the authors of this point of view, should take this into account. It coincides with the legality. To be legal means to have the quality of legal justice.

And vice versa, who has violated the legality, does not comply with legal norms, it acts contrary to legal justice. ” If you turn to the history of the issue, then the right to a fair court has biblical roots. For example, the requirements for a fair judicial procedure are found in the Old Testament. As a condition of justice, the law under consideration and its components are found in ancient sources of law.

So, in the Code of King Leogvild Liber Yudisiurum G. At the present stage, almost everywhere where the written constitutions exist, the right to a fair court has a constitutional character. We see the demand for justice in Art. However, we note that they are not about fair proceedings, but about a fair sentence. Thus, even from the post-revolutionary procedural legislation, we see that justice as a requirement of public morality and morality, having received legal accreditation in all the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, and then in the current criminal procedure legislation, for example, Art.

On this occasion, A. Koni said: “The judge, deciding the case, never has the right or the moral basis to say: ... .. he must say ... - I can’t otherwise - I can’t because the logic of things, the inner feeling, and the worldly truth, and the meaning of the law, is firmly and steadily tell me my decision, and my conscience will speak against any other as a judge and a person.” So, according to Part, if at the same time the result of the discretion of the judge made the parties and coincided with the discretion of higher courts, then it is considered fair.

The discretion, as well as justice in law enforcement, is always associated with a subjective factor. The hut is the authority given to the person who has the authorities to choose between two or more alternatives, when each of the alternatives is legal. ”