The criminal procedure aspect of differentiating criminal responsibility of the expert and specialist for perjury and conclusions
Journal Title: Юридические науки и образование - Year 2019, Vol 60, Issue 60
Abstract
The establishment of criminal responsibility of the expert and specialist for perjury and knowingly false conclusions is a guarantee of the credibility of the data obtained from them. The differentiation of this responsibility and the determination of the nature of illegal actions of each of the named persons who have special knowledge are only possible through a clear demarcation of their criminal procedure rights and duties. The aim of this work is to identify the criminal procedure conditions for prosecuting the expert and specialist. In the study the authors used the methods of comparative law, historicism, structured system analysis and synthesis. The analysis of the current Russian legislation, the criminal procedure legislation of Germany, which is the most similar to the Russian one in its conceptual framework and case law, shows the need to specify the criminal procedure status of the specialist in order not only to solve a lot of procedural problems of using his special knowledge, but also to ensure the strict differentiation of criminal responsibility of the specialist, expert and witness in case of their perjury during the investigation and in court. The differences in the procedural responsibilities of these persons create the features of the objective and subjective sides of illegal actions committed by them. The article may be useful in the field of legislation, law enforcement and science. The legally provided possibility to prosecute the experts and specialists for knowingly giving false opinions and testimony can be an effective means of ensuring the credibility of the evidence obtained with the use of their special knowledge, but only in case of maximum specification of the procedural status of the expert and specialist, which the current Russian law does not contain.
Authors and Affiliations
Alexander Tarasov, Aliya Sharipova
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP650935
- DOI 10.25108/2304-1730-1749.iolr.2019.60.450-466
- Views 93
- Downloads 0
Are the errors in criminal proceeding or crimes against the justice and interests of service?
The vast majority of violations in criminal proceedings are committed intentionally out of subjective motives, which excludes their attribution to the errors. All errors of representatives of the bodies conducting the cr...
Testimonies of witnesses as an object of cognition
The common object of cognition in criminal process is a system consisting on interlinked elements, which being themselves by the systems can be also studied and described. The system of the common object of cognition in...
Written testimonies as the sources of evidences in pre-trial production (comparative view)
There are a lot of worthy institutions and norms are included in the criminal procedure legislation of the states so named near abroad (the CIS countries). They are the norms of evidential law establishing the testimonie...
Basic principles of coordination by prosecutor of law enforcement bodies’ activity on combating corruption in Ukraine
It is examined the similarities concept of “coordination” that applies to the prosecutor coordination of law enforcement on anti-corruption. Highlighted features of the principles of such activities, as well as the princ...
Human rights in Ukrainian SSR: Crimean Tatars experience (second half of 1960 - the end of 80-ies of 20th century)
It is discussed and analyzed the process of the return of the Crimean Tatars after the publication of the Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet "On citizens of Tatar nationality, who lived in the Crimea," in...