Pechnikov G.A., Shinkaruk V.M., Solovyova N.A. Is Formal Legal and Objective (Material) Truth Reconcilable in the CCP RF?
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2018.4.7
Gennady A. Pechnikov
Doctor of Sciences (Law), Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Criminal Procedure UNK on PS in the Department of Internal Affairs, Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Historical St., 130, 400089 Volgograd, Russian Federation
Vladimir M. Shinkaruk
Candidate of Sciences (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Procedure and Criminalistics, Volgograd State University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Prosp. Universitetsky, 100, 400062 Volgograd, Russian Federation
Natalia A. Solovyova
Candidate of Sciences (Law), Associate Professor, Head Department of Criminal Procedure and Criminology, Volgograd State University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Prosp. Universitetsky, 100, 400062 Volgograd, Russian Federation
Abstract. The article critically evaluates the point of view on the coexistence of formally legal truth and objective (material) truth in today's Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it also criticizes the position that there are no criteria that clearly distinguishing these truths and that the philosophical approach should not be disseminated on the criminal process, which should be taken autonomously from philosophy. The article defends the point of view that in the present Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation competition is selfsufficient and excludes objective truth. Adversarial criminal process is characterized by formal legal truth, and objective truth requires a fundamentally different type (model) of criminal proceedings - an objectively true criminal process. The authors consider this model of criminal proceedings to be a higher, more perfect and fair type of criminal proceedings, in contrast to the adversarial (winning-losing) type of criminal process, in which the "right and fairness of the strong" prevails.The authors of the article firmly stand on the philosophy of the materialist dialectic; they believe that a philosophical approach is also necessary in the criminal process. In this regard, there are dialectical and non-dialectical (not taking into account the objective laws and rules of dialectics) criminal processes. Relativism of the adversary criminal process, its susceptibility to sophistry are obvious. Therefore, in a competitive duel of the parties, it is important to be more convincing in your arguments than your procedural opponent. We see an objectively-true model of the criminal process as a higher, more perfect and more equitable type of criminal proceedings. The intention of truth and the belief in the ability to prove it give a moral meaning to cognitive activity, whereas indifference to it was perceived throughout the history of culture as a threat to the moral existence of society.
Key words: formal legal truth, objective (material) truth, competitive (winning-losing) type of criminal process, materialistic dialectics, relativism, sophistry, reliability, probability.
Is Formal Legal and Objective (Material) Truth Reconcilable in the CCP RF? by Pechnikov G.A., Shinkaruk V.M., Solovyova N.A. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
 2_Pechnikov_etc.pmd.pdfURL: http://psst.jvolsu.com/index.php/en/component/attachments/download/1273 | 665 Downloads |