Author |
Anisin A.L. |
Title of article |
Ideological and theoretical principles of law enforcement and human rights protection policy |
Section |
Human rights protection |
Issue, year |
1 (31) 2015 |
Abstract |
The philosophical, ethical and ideological propositions suggested as the principles of modern law enforcement and human rights state policy are considered. Establishing the ideal of the Truth in judgments on people’s deeds is stated to be the main task of the law: goals of maintaining order and safety cannot be achieved without this ideal. The contradiction between the name and essence of human rights protection activity is shown (human rights advocates virtually defend not the right itself but a person). Indeed, human rights protection activity is conducted by prosecutors. This activity (which is actually right destructive activity) is based on explaining the reasons of persons’ deeds by their insanity, excitement and hard living conditions. The decision of allowing the courts to change category of crimes into less grave is negatively estimated. The parole institution is considered not as a legal act, but as an act of grace, contradicting the provisions of original sentence. It’s suggested that capital punishment can facilitate true humanization of society: it is the last chance to die being a human. Implementation of this punishment can provide the opportunity to take compassion upon a criminal. The author proposes to consider the ideal of social and moral Truth as the highest value principle of law enforcement policy. Our state should support mercy initiatives, but it should not contradict legal principles of the society. The author states that protection of human rights and dignity should rely on the responsibility of being a human in front of the Highest Truth. |
Keywords |
essence of law, freedom, responsibility, ideal of Truth, human rights protection activity, liberalization of legislation, legal policy. |
References |
1. Kant I. Osnovy metafiziki nravstvennosti [Basics Metaphysics of Morals]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1999. 1471 p. 2. Il’in I.A. O sushchnosti pravosoznaniya [On the essence of justice]. Sobranie sochineniy. V 10 t. T. 4. [Collected Works. In 10 volumes. Volume 4]. Moscow, Russkaya kniga Publ., 1994. Pp. 149-414. 3. Anisin A.L. Kontseptual’nye i real’nye smysly svobody [Conceptual and a real sense of freedom]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Kul’turologiya – Herald of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2010, no. 31 (212). Philosophy. Sociology. Cultural Studies. Edition 19, pp. 45-47. 4. Solov’ev V.S. Opravdanie dobra. Nravstvennaya filosofiya [Justification of the Good. Moral Philosophy]. Sochineniya. V 2 t. T. 1 [Works. In 2 volumes. Volume 1]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1990. 892 p. 5. Dal’ V.I. Tolkovyy slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka. T. 3. P-R. [Explanatory Dictionary of Russian language. Volume 3. P-R]. St. Petersburg; Moscow, Publishing partnership of M.O. Wolf, 1907. 1782 p. 6. Kulikov V. Bud’te dobry, Vasha chest’. Sud’yam ob”yasnili, kak smyagchat’ prigovory [Please, Your Honor. Judges explained how to mitigate sentences]. Rossiyskaya gazeta. Federal’nyy vypusk – Russian newspaper. Federal edition. 2012, 4 July, no. 5823 (150). 7. Girina Z. O liberalizatsii ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva [On the liberalization of criminal law]. NOVOSTI Samara24.ru. 10.03.2011 g. [NEWS Samara24.ru. 10.03.2011]. Available at: http://gorod.samara24.ru/news/society/2011/03/10/o_liberalizacii_ugolovnogo_zakonodatelstva/ (Accessed 23 March 2014). 8. Larina L.Yu. K voprosu ob izmenenii sudom kategorii prestupleniya [On the question of changing the category of crime]. Yuridicheskaya nauka – Legal Science, 2013, no. 2, pp. 56-59. 9. Mikhaylov A. Uslovno-dosrochnoe osvobozhdenie [Conditional early release]. Zakonnost’ – legality, 2005, no. 10, pp. 28-31. 10. Anisin A.L. Problema smertnoy kazni: kriminologicheskiy, sotsial’nyy i nravstvennyy aspekty [The problem of the death penalty: criminological, social and moral aspects]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitel’naya praktika – Legal science and law enforcement practice, 2012, no. 2 (20), pp. 34-41. |