The Socially Integrative Purpose of Criminal Procedure Law

The paper examines the socio-integrative function of criminal procedure law and seeks to identify its unifying role within society. The socio-integrative purpose of criminal procedure law lies in fostering social cohesion and securing public acceptance of the State’s methods of responding to criminally punishable conduct. Criminal proceedings, as well as their institutional design, reflect society’s attitude toward the criminal justice system as a whole. The organization of criminal proceedings should be grounded on moral principles and remain subject to ethical standards and normative constraints. The paper describes criteria for assessing social satisfaction with the existing criminal justice system, including the general socio-psychological climate surrounding the resolution of criminal conflicts and the level of public trust in the system. Such trust encompasses, inter alia, a certain degree of social solidarity with the procedural coercive measures established within the system and satisfaction with their application. The organic interrelationship between the socio-integrative function of substantive criminal law and that of criminal procedure law is emphasized. At the same time, the Article demonstrates that criminal procedure law possesses an independent socio-integrative function, manifested in the capacity of criminal proceedings and their institutional structure to satisfy fundamental societal needs. These needs include the deterrence and control of crime, the resolution of criminal law conflicts, the restitution of harm caused by criminal conduct, and the prevention of future criminal offenses.

1. Alekseev SS. Problems of the Theory of Law. Vol. 1. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya Literatura Publ.; 1981. (In Russ.).

2. Aristotle. Works: In 4 vols. Vol. 4. Moscow: Mysl Publ.; 1984. (In Russ.).

3. Barkhatova EYu. Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation: New Edition (Article-by-Article). 3rd ed. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2020. (In Russ.).

4. Bektenov AE, Omarova NN. Compensation Fund for Victims: Disadvantages and Advantages. Bulletin of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2021;2(65):142-150. (In Russ.).

5. Cheltsov MA. Soviet Criminal Procedure. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ.; 1951. (In Russ.).

6. Golik YuV. The Socialist Idea and the Necessity of Its Reflection in Criminal Law and Penal Law. St. Petersburg; 2007. (In Russ.).

7. Golovko IV. Course of Criminal Procedure. 3rd ed. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2021. (In Russ.).

8. Kistyakovsky BA. Philosophy and Sociology of Law. St. Petersburg: RKhGI Publ.; 1998. (In Russ.).

9. Koni AF. Moral Principles in Criminal Procedure (General Features of Judicial Ethics). Available at: http://vivovoco.ibmh.msk.su/VV/PAPERS/BIO/KONI/AFKONI_E.HTM.

10. Kuzmina OV. Alternative Methods of Resolving CriminalLegal Conflicts in Russian Law. Lex russica. 2015;1:51- 58. (In Russ.).

11. Prokhorov VS, Kropachev NM, Tarbagaev AN. Mechanism of CriminalLegal Regulation. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk University Publ.; 1989. (In Russ.).

12. Shchedrin NV, Kylina OM. Security Measures for the Protection of Power and Safeguarding Against It. Krasnoyarsk: RUMC YUO Publ.; 2006. (In Russ.).

13. Smolkova IV. Anatolii F. Koni on Judicial Eloquence and the Art of Oratory. Advokatskaya praktika. 2014;2:3- 10. (In Russ.).

14. Stoyko NG. Criminal Procedure of Western States and Russia: A Comparative TheoreticalLegal Study of the AngloAmerican and RomanoGerman Legal Systems. St. Petersburg; 2006. (In Russ.).

15. Strogovich MS. Course of Soviet Criminal Procedure: Textbook. Moscow: The Academy of Sciences of the USSR Publ.; 1958. (In Russ.).

16. Uss AV. The SocialIntegrative Role of Criminal Law. Krasnoyarsk; 2015. (In Russ.).

17. Vaipan VA. Theory of Justice: Law and Economics. Moscow: Yustitsinform Publ.; 2017. (In Russ.).