Computing Systems (Computers) and Criminal Trial

Abstract

In article the problem about a possibility of introduction of the computer in process of proof on criminal cases is considered. It is noted that the probable, formative-legal, legal truth therefore it followed a firm way of its formalization is peculiar to the modern competitive Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in which competitiveness is self-sufficient and excludes an objective truth (since everything solves a duel of the parties), and in this plan it is ready to its further formalization in an electronic and computer form. As competitive criminal trial is based on the probable legal truth, to it quite there correspond the actual presumptions—syntheses of typical experience (so usually happens in similar cases in practice), which are always probabilistic, plausible. Therefore the actual presumptions as units of skilled “ready knowledge” can be quite entered into computer memory as the formalized “evidentiary facts” (formalism) that on their basis to establish the probable, legal, summarized truth on criminal cases. In article process with the objective and true concept of criminal legal proceedings is opposed to competitive type of criminal trial (but now objective and true process remains unclaimed). This type of process on the natural essence does not accept the formalized, probable, summarized truth, including also the computerized, “digital” truth, and to proceed from reliability, an objective truth which is always concrete and does not depend neither on individual, nor on the collective answer. In article it is emphasized that the materialism as matter—objective reality, but not consciousness in the form of summarized individual or collective experience as in competitive criminal trial undertakes primary is the cornerstone of gnoseology (the theory of knowledge) of objective and true model of criminal trial. It is idealism. In article it is shown that the computer formalized actual presumptions as proofs will force out from process of proof of the proof as the “concrete actual data” which are adequately reflecting objective reality and leaders to an objective truth. The attention that “the electronic judge” and questions of morality are incompatible that behind the formalized probabilities, for summarized, “the electronic truth” judicial and investigative mistakes can disappear is paid, and “competitive computerized” approach in own way protects “the right for a mistake” that immorally legally and morally. The author’s conclusion is drawn that in an objective truth the high morality is concluded that the refusal of an objective truth in criminal trial is defective, from here the objective and true model (type) of criminal trial is higher, more perfect type of criminal legal proceedings, than competitive (advantageous and losing) process, including also its electronic version.