Penal Persecution in Key Concepts and Management
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The article is devoted to the matter description of penal persecution as a decisive instrument in the fight against crime and to the comparison of former and present (valid since 2003 05 01) key institutions of procedural form.
Penal persecution procedural forms are compared to legal procedure which worked before 2003. The article looks into differences between interrogation, preliminary investigation and pre-trial investigation as well as the former and present interaction and procedural status of subjects – interrogator, investigator, head officials and prosecutor – in the penal persecution. The comparison is carried on the basis of certain law sources with the analysis of penal persecution practice results. The author states that the present rules of procedure contain certain confusion and are not properly balanced because they refuse some institutions which have previously well justified themselves and also ignore suggested ways of improvement. Besides, the interaction among different subjects executing the penal persecution is not working as it has to and therefore brings some misunderstandings and often breach of human rights and freedoms. At the same time the demand for material and other organizational resources is growing. Concentration of responsibilities delegated to certain police institutions purely on pre-trial investigation work reduces the strength of other institutions. On the other hand, the qualification of pre-trial investigation has been put on the same level with responsibilities that do not need higher professional skill and experience which resulted in the falling of pre-trial work prestige as well as to the decrease of police staff professionalism. At the end of the article the author presents recommendations of how to solve the listed problems.
Penal persecution procedural forms are compared to legal procedure which worked before 2003. The article looks into differences between interrogation, preliminary investigation and pre-trial investigation as well as the former and present interaction and procedural status of subjects – interrogator, investigator, head officials and prosecutor – in the penal persecution. The comparison is carried on the basis of certain law sources with the analysis of penal persecution practice results. The author states that the present rules of procedure contain certain confusion and are not properly balanced because they refuse some institutions which have previously well justified themselves and also ignore suggested ways of improvement. Besides, the interaction among different subjects executing the penal persecution is not working as it has to and therefore brings some misunderstandings and often breach of human rights and freedoms. At the same time the demand for material and other organizational resources is growing. Concentration of responsibilities delegated to certain police institutions purely on pre-trial investigation work reduces the strength of other institutions. On the other hand, the qualification of pre-trial investigation has been put on the same level with responsibilities that do not need higher professional skill and experience which resulted in the falling of pre-trial work prestige as well as to the decrease of police staff professionalism. At the end of the article the author presents recommendations of how to solve the listed problems.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
