Contradictions of judicial criminal policy ; Противоречия судебно-уголовной политики

Abstract

The subject of the study is the criminal policy in the context of contradictions in the functioning of the courts.The purpose of the study is to investigate, which contradictions of criminal policy are generated by a multi-level system of courts, and which mechanisms for overcoming them in order to optimize criminal policy could be found out.The methodology. In modern conditions of diversification of methodological approaches to organizing and conducting political-legal research, it is important not to discard, but to rethink and rediscover the epistemological possibilities of the methods of classical science, especially the method of dialectical analysis.The main results and scope of the study. The use of the category "dialectical contradiction" for the purpose of studying the problems of the functioning of the courts in terms of the interpretation and application of criminal law provisions opens up new possibilities in the study of criminal and judicial policy, as well as determining the prospects for its development. In the study, the law enforcement contradictions of criminal policy refer to the relations between courts of various types and levels that develop in the course of their functioning and reflect the opposite approaches of law enforcement bodies to the interpretation and application of criminal legislation. Considering the level and type of legal proceedings, these contradictions can be summarized in the following groups: (a) between national and international courts; (b) between superior courts of the national legal system; (c) between the courts of various instances of the system of courts of general jurisdiction.The contradictions between national and international courts, emerging in the field of protection of human rights and freedoms, are an objective source of development of judicial practice and policy. The resolution of these contradictions is based on the consensus of various courts and compromise. If the position of the European Court of Human Rights does not contradict the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state adjusts its legal practice in the direction set by the authoritative international instance by means of: (a) direct application of national legislation with due regard for the ECHR's legal positions; (b) the application of national legislation in its constitutional interpretation by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which does not differ from the decisions and positions of the ECHR; (c) amending national legal acts in pursuance of ECHR judgments. In exceptional cases, when the position of the European Court touches upon issues of the country's constitutional identity, the contradiction between the international and national legal order is resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the basis of the priority of constitutional norms.At the level of the superior national courts the contradictions are represented by the differing positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the assessment and interpretation of criminal law provisions. Such contradictions can be thought of as latent until they are not revealed in constitutional proceedings. The identification and resolution of these contradictions is the most important direction of legal policy in the country; it reflects the consistent solution of the aim of constitutionalization of the criminal law.At the level of the system of courts of general jurisdiction, the concept of "contradiction" can only be applied to those differing approaches of the courts to solving criminal cases that do not go beyond the rule of law. Contradictions arise only when, having correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, the courts disagree in the choice of the legal provision to be applied, although any such choice can be explained and motivated. These contradictions may or may not be related to the quality of criminal legislation. Therefore, the mechanism for their resolution includes not only law revision. It is important to use the capabilities of the judicial system itself to develop a consensual understanding of the textual content of the criminal law and the rules for its application.Conclusions. Overcoming the contradictions of the judicial criminal policy is possible only in the process of communication and dialogue between the courts of different levels on the basis of differentiation of jurisdiction, respect for authority and independence. ; Рассматриваются противоречия судебного уровня реализации уголовной политики, которые складываются в сфере функционирования международных и национальных судов различных уровней при толковании, оценке и применении правовых норм. Предлагается классификация этих противоречий на основе уровня, вида судопроизводства и источника возникновения, которая помогает лучше понять механизм функционирования судебной системы, роль судов в обеспечении верховенства права. Принимая во внимание диалектическую природу противоречий, доказывается, что механизм их преодоления должен включать в себя как организационные решения в части разграничения компетенции судов, так и идейно-нормативные решения, обеспечивающие компромисс судебных позиций ради достижения общей цели соблюдения прав человека при разрешении уголовно-правового конфликта.