Validity and Motivation of Decisions in Criminal Proceedings
Abstract
The article examines the concept and meaning of the substantiation and motivation of decisions in criminal proceedings. Achievement of the objectives of the criminal process is directly dependent on the soundness and motivation of criminal proceedings. The requirement that the decision was not only justified, but also motivated, follows from the fact that motivation increases the soundness of the decision, gives it internal and external persuasiveness, simplifies the process of the decision taken by the participants. Motivation is considered a type of reasonableness, where the speculator recognizes the indication of the reason for choosing the option of action. The goal of the article is the absolute theoretical-legal analysis of the validity and motivation of criminal procedural decisions, the introduction of guarantees for the improvement of criminal procedural law and its use.
References
[2] Sadarova, A.N. 2017. The motivation of judicial decisions in the criminal process. Siberian legal Bulletin, 2 (77): 98-103.
[3] Hansson, S. 2017. Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction. 124. https://web.archive.org/web/20060705052730/http://www.infra.kth.se/~soh/decisiontheory.pdf (an excellent non-technical and fairly comprehensive primer)
[4] Alekseev, S.S. 1973. Problems of the theory of law. Sverdlovsk. 401 .
[5] Lupinskaya, P.A. 1976. Decisions in criminal proceedings. Their types, content and forms. Moscow: 176.
[6] Abzalbekova, M.T., Zhamiyeva, R.M. 2018. Requirements imposed to criminal procedure decisions. Bulletin of the Karaganda State University,1(89): 72-88.
[7] Krivosheev, S.I. 2017. No justification is given for judicial decisions as the basis of review on appeal. Bulletin of Karaganda State University, 3 (67): 274-279.
[8] Ksenzov, A. 2011. Information validity of the investigator's procedural decisions. St. Petersburg: 175.
[9] Kogamov, M. 2015. Comment to the Criminal procedure code of Kazakhstan. Almaty. Zheti Zhargy: 648.
[10] Muravin, A.B. 2016. Problems of motivation of procedural decisions of the investigator. Kharkov: 224.
[11] Karpov, A.V. 2011. Methodological aspects of an experimental study of the process of decision making. Modern experimental psychology. Moscow: 89-114.
[12] Belyaev, M.V. 2018. On the motivation of judicial decisions in the criminal process. Legal science and law enforcement practice, 2 (44): 116-124.
[13] Enikeev, M.I. 2016. Terminological dictionary. General and social psychology. Moscow: 624.
[14] Aces, N.A. 2016. Motivation and prejudice of judicial acts. Moscow: 152.
[15] Davletov, A.A. 2017. Criminal procedure. Ekaterinburg: 312.
[16] Gaprindashvili, R.T. 2016. The problems of the theory and practice of the adoption of criminal procedural decisions by the subjects of the search and cognitive activity. Moscow: 181.
[17] Ponomarenko, V.A. 2017. Motivated judgment in civil and arbitration proceedings. Moscow: 124.
[18] Lupinskaya, P.A. 2017. Decisions in criminal proceedings: theory, legislation and practice. Moscow: Norma. 240.
[19] Zagorsky, G.I. 2017. Sentencing. Problems of theory and practice. Educational and practical manual. Moscow: 208.
[20] Kudryavtseva, A.V. 2018. The motivation of the court decision as a component of the fairness of the trial. Criminal Justice, 11 (22): 61-64.
[21] Bozrov, V.M. 2013. Judgment and assessment of evidence in a criminal case: monograph. Moscow: 155.
[22] Yurinskaya, I.S. 2012. Motivation is a guarantee of legality and validity. State and Law in Modern Conditions. Novosibirsk: 41.
[23] Regarding the Judicial Sentence Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. 2018: 44.
[24] Kornakova, S.V., Shcherbakov, V.A. 2018. Justification and motivation of the court verdict: criteria for the differentiation of concepts. Legal science and law enforcement practice, 2 (44): 108-115.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.