Тип публикации: статья из журнала
Год издания: 2017
Идентификатор DOI: 10.17223/22253513/24/6
Ключевые слова: приговор, обоснованность, внешнее выражение обоснованности, доказывание, sentence, validity, external expression of validity, proof
Аннотация: Анализируется история отечественного уголовно-процессуального законодательства на предмет необходимости отражения в приговоре не только итоговых выводов суда, которые, безусловно, должны быть обоснованы, но и процесса их формирования -обоснования. Отмечается, что такое требование к приговору предъявлялось начиная со времен Уставов Показать полностьюуголовного судопроизводства 1864 г. Наиболее полное закрепление данного требования является достижением современного законодательства, и его необходимо сохранить. The article pays attention to the fact that, being a final criminal procedure decision, a sentence cannot be arbitrary. In this sense, the requirement for a sentence to be reasonable is indisputable. At the same time, taking into account the analysis of the last legislative initiatives in the field of civil and arbitration proceedings that allow making decisions without a descriptive and motivation part, the article mainstreams the problem of external expression of sentence validity. The need to fix both final court conclusions and the way of their formation is proved by applying a comparative-historical method. When analyzing the history of domestic criminal trial, we can see that for the first time the requirement of a sentence to comprise external expression of validity was published in the Charters of Criminal Legal Proceedings 1864. However, in view of too general character of legislative wordings of the practice on the specified question was developing diversely. Respectively, some sentences were the most developed in respect of substantiation of court findings, others were unreasonably short. After the revolution and adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code of RSFSR 1923, the requirement for external expression of validity of a sentence disappeared from domestic legislation. Court practice was changing appropriately and it did not pay attention to the question under consideration. However, scientists required a sentence to be not just reasonable, but also to comprise an external expression of such validity. It has been noted that the situation essentially changed only with the adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code of RSFSR 1960 and a number of Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR. The position according to which the conclusions of sentence have to be not just correct but based on the body of evidence and on the right interpretation of norms of substantive and procedural law was developed. The correctness of interpretation has to be shown by way of its textual fixing in a sentence. Having analyzed modern criminal procedure legislation, the author concludes that a sentence has to comprise an external expression of validity. This conclusion is supported both by the analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and a number of Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Moreover, it is noted that modern legislation focuses both on the external demonstration of sentence validity and o concrete requirements to it. In conclusion, it is emphasized that the requirement for external expression of validity of the sentence is result of centuries-old evolution of the domestic criminal procedure legislation and, taking into account the value of sentence, we should not abrogate it for the sake of momentary benefits.
Журнал: Вестник Томского государственного университета. Право
Выпуск журнала: № 24
Номера страниц: 59-66
ISSN журнала: 22253513
Место издания: Томск
Издатель: Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования "Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет"