Lozovoi’s amendments: total amnesty or manual control of courts?
Almost complete anarchy is reigning the system of justice now. The laws, determining the rules of life for the society, are written by God knows who and don’t bring anything except chaos. They drag all of us to the bottom like the blind or the intoxicated. The idea hasn’t been finished yet, but the words are already on Facebook. PR has washed out thoughts from the brains. The less knowledge, the more self-confidence. Model syndrome.
After “special confiscation by Mrs. Chernovol”, “Lozovoi’s amendments” became one more masterpiece of the legal idea. The first one was returning laboriously expropriation from the proletarian revolution time. The second one, I’m sorry, is a cero absoluto. Why would a person with a questionable teacher training education meddle in amending the criminal law and process?
In short, for non-specialists about the essence of “innovations by Lozovoi”:
- Limitations of terms for the investigation. General period for pre-trial investigation for some range of crimes cannot exceed six months. If the case isn’t sent to court upon completion date, it must be closed.
- Defense right to appeal the notice of suspect to the investigating judge.
- Solution of questions on expertise necessity and questions by the investigating judge to the expert-witness.
- State institutions monopoly on expertise in the criminal case.
I see it as an obvious diversion directed at elimination of the system of justice in the country. Why?
Firstly, no criminal case will be investigated during six months. Motto of “the amendments” is “Commit crimes unpunished”! Introduced amendments are in a complete controversy to other norms and provisions of the criminal process including limitation period for prosecution. People of Ukraine don’t need such amendments. They destroy victim’s rights to state search and bringing to responsibility of guilty ones. What is it? Stupidity or foresight?
Secondly, to appeal the notice of suspect in court. Only think about it! The prosecution notifies you in writing about the suspicions, and the defense appeals?! In fact, you can engage attorney from this moment, start working as a party to the process and collect evidence. And you are offered to appeal! Time limit for the prosecution started. And you appeal against it? Whom it occurred to? To laymen or diversionists? Ask yourself a simple question: will it help to ascertain the truth in a criminal case?
Furthermore, the investigating judge makes decision to perform expertise or not, what questions the expert-witness should admit and what not. Why does the justice need prosecution? And attorney? Who collects evidence? The judge! They have crossed out the adversary of the criminal process and thrown away both the prosecution and the defense!
Monopoly of state expert-witnesses. You must clearly understand who the expert-witness is in the criminal process. For the justice, it is a person testifying before the court about the crime, differing from a simple witness only in being absent from the crime scene, and she uses her special knowledge on the subject and facts to testify. Both the prosecution and the defense can engage her, and the victim and the claimant can address to her. What does the state monopoly have to do with that? We can trace here not laymen or diversionists, but a direct political and corruption interest. The state officers of the system want to monopolize evidence and to make the expert-judge out of the expert-witness. The elimination of the adversary of the process and the influence of authorities is the evident result.
The law regulates absolutely everything. Only one word from the lawmaker and the robber is free, and one more – the killer is acquitted without trial. That’s not the theory, it’s the reality of our life today. What’s next? Will it be just the mistake of the laymen in the law or universal amnesty to the criminals and manual control of the system of justice?