In the presidential administration and the Supreme Court do not support the idea of extending the competence of the jury in the form in which it exists now. This became clear at a roundtable at the University of justice, where on behalf of the President discussed the possibility of a more active use of the jury. The need to at least return the competence of jurors excluded therefrom under various pretexts offenses ( now such courts hear only cases involving crimes for who faces life in prison or death penalty, it is ?? about 500 cases per year) insist in the Human Rights Council under the President of ( HRC). Until now, the Chairman of the Board recognized Mikhail Fedotov, « all our proposals were met with a wall of misunderstanding.” In January, the President instructed the Supreme Court until March 30, to develop proposals on the possibility of expanding the use of a jury trial.
This extension is possible, but at the expense of reducing the number of jurors to seven people, says the vice-president of the Supreme Court, Vladimir Davydov. A panel of five people could hear cases in the district courts, which are now listening to 98% of all criminal cases. Then the competence of the jury could be translated murder cases, robbery and grievous bodily harm resulting in death. In addition, judges should participate in the discussion of the verdict in the deliberation room ?? this will prevent many mistakes that subsequently become grounds for the annulment. Preservation of the existing models and simple return to the jury earlier jurisdiction of cases it would hardly be reasonable ?? in the end, the Constitutional Court has confirmed the legality of restrictions held its competence, Davydov said.
The judges complain of problems with the formation of the jury and the high cost of this court: well, if from 1500-2000 due to come 50-60 said deputy chairman of the Moscow City Court Dmitry Fomin. Last year, the Volgograd regional court petition for consideration of their cases by jury said 22 defendants ( 60% of those who had to this right), while for the year by a jury spent 1.5 million rubles., estimates the vice-president of the court Dmitry Tulenkov. The anticipated expansion of the competence of the jury will lead to a 35-fold increase in the load, and it will cost about 50 million rubles., He warns.
A jury ?? too expensive, « we need the cheap”, acknowledged presidential adviser Veniamin Yakovlev. According to Yakovlev, a good alternative would be to participate in trials of people’s assessors.
The existing now in Russia jury borrowed from the Anglo-Saxon system, but even there it is applied is limited, as is inherently archaic sure zavkafedroj criminal proceedings MSU Leonid Golovko. This court has emerged as a revolutionary tool, when it was necessary to break the old legal model, and it is clear why it was needed in the 90s. In its present form it can continue to exist as a kind of « showcases justice”, but consider the expansion of its functions, in principle, impossible insists Golovko. May be more effective institute of people’s assessors, he agrees with Yakovlev, to the point where it was decided to abandon, the institute was reformed and became quite correct form assessors were asked to select, as jurors randomly.
In the HRC fear that the reform process will emasculation of the idea of a people’s court. The judges believe that they can manipulate the jury and hide behind them, said a member of the HRC Leonid Nikitinsky. « I can not help feeling that we bury the jury “?? admitted to the judge of the Constitutional Court retired Tamara Morschakova. In turn, the judge complained about the biased attitude towards them. Judge Moscow Regional Hope Akimov believes that attempts to discredit the judiciary indiscriminately. « This is the jury retarded sense of justice: some of them are not considered bribes crime and the state of alcoholic intoxication for them rather a mitigating circumstance “?? resented it.
Davydov said that the proposals will analyze, summarize and presidential election will be presented various options for the possible expansion of the use of a jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment