Tarasov A.A., Sharipova A.R. The Criminal Procedure Aspect of Differentiating Criminal Responsibility of the Expert and Specialist for Perjury and Conclusions
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2017.3.3
Alexander A. Tarasov, Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Bashkir State University, Zaki Validi St., 32, 450076 Ufa, Russian Federation, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Aliya R. Sharipova, Candidate of Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Bashkir State University, Zaki Validi St., 32, 450076 Ufa, Russian Federation, nordwind23@mail.ru, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Introduction: the establishment of criminal responsibility of the expert and specialist for perjury and knowingly false conclusions is a guarantee of the credibility of the data obtained from them. The differentiation of this responsibility and the determination of the nature of illegal actions of each of the named persons who have special knowledge are only possible through a clear demarcation of their criminal procedure rights and duties. The aim of this work is to identify the criminal procedure conditions for prosecuting the expert and specialist. In the study the authors used the methods of comparative law, historicism, structured system analysis and synthesis. Results: the analysis of the current Russian legislation, the criminal procedure legislation of Germany, which is the most similar to the Russian one in its conceptual framework and case law, shows the need to specify the criminal procedure status of the specialist in order not only to solve a lot of procedural problems of using his special knowledge, but also to ensure the strict differentiation of criminal responsibility of the specialist, expert and witness in case of their perjury during the investigation and in court. The differences in the procedural responsibilities of these persons create the features of the objective and subjective sides of illegal actions committed by them. Scope of application: the article may be useful in the field of legislation, law enforcement and science. Conclusions: the legally provided possibility to prosecute the experts and specialists for knowingly giving false opinions and testimony can be an effective means of ensuring the credibility of the evidence obtained with the use of their special knowledge, but only in case of maximum specification of the procedural status of the expert and specialist, which the current Russian law does not contain.
Key words: false testimony, false imprisonment, criminal responsibility, perjury, crimes against justice, special knowledge, calling for expert evidence, carrying out an expertise.
 Tarasov_Sharipova.pdfURL: https://j.jvolsu.com/index.php/en/component/attachments/download/1680 | 690 Downloads |