Prejudice in the criminal process is a certain subtlety of the legal sphere falling into the field of view of only some representatives of this profession. Judges, investigators, investigators, prosecutors - everyone involved in the trial should understand and apply such an institution in practice, since it greatly simplifies the decision-making process.
The concept of prejudice
There is no unambiguous definition of this institution in the legislation. However, it is generally accepted that some obligation of the court to accept the facts without investigating them, if they were established by a decision that had previously entered into legal force, this is prejudice in the criminal process. An example is evidence that was previously recognized as well-known and accordingly does not require establishing their truth.
This institution is always related exclusively to judicial decisions and acts only in a certain system of law, namely in that where the precedent is the source of law. It is important to remember that prejudice has a close relationship with him, which explains its essence. This institution is an obligation to take into account or apply the same precedent, that is, an event that has already happened and has significance.
Types of this Institute
There are quite a few classifications of this institution. The theory pays special attention to this, however, the two most important divisions most often identified are considered the most common. The first of these is the use of prejudice in criminal proceedings in full or in truncated form. The classification principle is simple - unlimited and limited by some actions, respectively.
Another division is carried out according to the principle of refutability, namely, strict and non-strict. In the second case, it is necessary to verify the facts, despite the establishment of their legal decision, in the first this is not required. The law does not say anything about these species, but in practice they are widely used.
The importance of these classifications is very great, despite the fact that there are many. The point is that in this way the limits are determined in which prejudice in the criminal process may or may not apply at all, and this already entails legal consequences.
The content of the institute as a court duty
The prejudice of a sentence in criminal proceedings implies the obligation of the court to accept facts that were previously established by the other presiding judge. This follows from the concept. This institution contains certain relevant aspects that have already been proven or, moreover, are recognized as well-known.
Decisions and sentences of courts that contain established facts are not always binding. Some of them require verification, which is carried out by the chairman, but this is rare. The main thing is to always remember that the truth must be established. If certain events require clarifications and refinements, then the use of a particular sentence will not be considered as prejudice.
Functions
The functions of this institution are no different. There are two main, united in a group of implementers. The first of these is a regulatory function typical of any industry and sub-industry. It implies that this institution captures a number of norms that streamline social relations and establish certain rules of behavior.
The second group is a protective function.It aims to protect universally recognized relationships and to eliminate unnecessary relationships. An example of such a manifestation may be a sentence that contains an established fact of guilt and defines the defendant as a particularly dangerous recidivist.
If you pay special attention, you can understand that the division of the functions of prejudice coincides with the division of the rule of law. They likewise represent two groups that both regulate social relations and protect them.
The role of the institute in criminal proceedings
The content and effect of prejudice in criminal proceedings is perfectly clear. This institution is aimed at accelerating the procedure for considering a case in court and achieving truth in the shortest way. However, if we talk about the role, then it is very large and has several manifestations, which theorists have been arguing about all the time.
Some believe that simplification of the proceedings, namely the use of prejudice in the criminal process, is not permissible actions that entail the loss of the truth of one or another fact. According to many theorists, this institution cannot be extended to all possible cases, since each specific situation has its own specific features.
The second group of people adheres to the fact that prejudice is an excellent time saver. They support the ideas of this institution and believe that it simply does not make sense to prove the same facts several times, spending time and effort, since the subject of proof in different cases coincides quite often.
Scope of Prejudice
If you believe the research, then the definition of clear boundaries of the action of this institution is almost impossible. The only restriction in the effect of prejudice is a court decision on the basis of which a particular fact is recognized as well-known or proven earlier. It is impossible to go beyond its limits, then the whole meaning of the institution will be lost.
That is, if we talk about restrictions, then they can be delineated by the framework of specific legal relations and facts arising from them and subject to proof. It is also important to remember the circle of people who use this institution and in relation to whom it is carried out. Each border is fixed by a necessary judicial decision, which is why prejudice is closely related to this act and even depends on it.
Institute implementation efficiency
This issue has three aspects. They demonstrate exactly what the result of prejudice in the criminal process. So, the first is goal setting. It implies the establishment of goals, results, to which this institution aspires. They must be built correctly and as concrete as possible.
The second thing that is important is the achievement of the goal. The point is that the actions of the relevant state bodies aimed at achieving the established result are taken into account. The final result depends on the correct application and adoption of various acts, the implementation of certain functions. That is why goal achievement is an important aspect of prejudice effectiveness.
And the last thing that matters is utility. It is necessary to clearly define how important prejudice is for public relations. It is necessary to take into account each specific court decision, analyzing it and assuming how much it will affect the receipt of the result that was planned.
The relationship of prejudice and evidence
Prejudice and its role in proving are very important points that determine this institution. As mentioned earlier, it is assumed that the court may not investigate certain facts if their truth was established earlier by another decision. Of course, there are many exceptions, however, according to general rules, the presiding judge always simply saves time and applies previously established information.
The connection between prejudice and the process of proof is very close only because the institution in most cases eliminates the need to carry out this activity. However, it is important to remember that any prejudicial sentence may be appealed, protested and, moreover, may simply not be applied by a judge if he has a number of doubts.
The use of prejudice in litigation
The criminal process and this institution are related in that the previously established facts should be applied without verification by the investigator, the interrogating officer, and the prosecutor. The concept and significance of prejudice in the criminal process is quite broad, which extends to the trial. There is no fundamental difference between the judicial and criminal process in relation to prejudice.
The judge, as well as other participants from the prosecution, must accept the fact without investigation, if this is allowed by the court. However, in the trial, the presiding judge has the right to doubt. The point is that a judge is quite capable of verifying any evidence, if it causes him uncertainty, the prosecutor or investigator does not have such a right. This is the peculiarity of the application of this institution in court.
