Maria BLIKHAR, Oksana DUFENIUK, Viacheslav BLIKHAR

Ceza Muhakemesi Sistemindeki 'Hedef-Araçlar' Dengesi yahut İyi Bir Hedef Kötü Araçları Haklı Çıkarabilir mi?

Araştırmanın odak noktası, ebedi iyilik ve kötülük sorunudur. Bu kez, bu ikilik ceza muhakemesi alanında lokalizedir ve bir yanda hedefin, diğer yanda onu gerçekleştirmenin araçlarının korelasyonuyla ilgilidir. Başka bir deyişle, ana araştırma sorusu şudur: Makyavelizm mahkeme salonunda haklı çıkarılabilir mi? Makyavelizm kavramı, cezai kovuşturma bağlamında, tutuklulara, şüphelilere, gerçeği bilme, failleri açığa çıkarma, hayat kurtarma, rehinelerin serbest bırakılması, vb. kimselere karşı fiziksel veya psikolojik şiddetin kullanılmasına izin verildiğini düşünen "amaç herhangi bir aracı haklı çıkarır" felsefesinin uygulanması anlamına gelir. Uluslararası toplum, kolluk kuvvetleri bünyesinde işkence ve kötü muameleyi önlemek için güvenlik mekanizmaları geliştirmek için sürekli olarak çalışıyor olsa da, bu hakikat arayışı uygulamasının yeraltına taşındığı ve birçok ülkede hala özel servisler tarafından kullanıldığı görülüyor.

Balance of 'Goal-Means' in the System of Criminal Procedure or Can a Good Goal Justify Evil Means?

The focus of research is the eternal problem of good and evil. This time, this dichotomy is localized in the field of criminal procedure and concerns the correlation of the goal, on the one hand, and on the other – the means to achieve it. In other words, the main research question is: Can Machiavellianism be justified in the courtroom? The concept of Machiavellianism means the application of the philosophy of "the goal justifies any means", which in the context of criminal prosecution considers permissible the use of physical or psychological violence against detainees, suspects, accused of the high purpose of cognizing the truth, exposing perpetrators, saving lives, the release of hostages, etc. Although the international community is constantly working to develop safety mechanisms to prevent torture and ill-treatment within law enforcement agencies, this truth-seeking practice appears to have moved underground and is still used by special services in many countries.

PDF

___

Bobechko, N. (2017). Meta kryminalnoho provadzhennya [Goal of criminal proceedings]. Yurydychnui visnyk, 2, 126-135.
Blikhar, M., Dufeniuk, О. & Blikhar, V. (2020). The Philosophy of the European Court of Human Rights: Axiological Paradigm. Beytulhikme Int.J.Phil, 10 (2), 355−371.
Chojniak, Ł. (2013). O zasadzie prawdy materialnej w procesie karnym w świetle Konstytucji RP. Państwo i Prawo, 9, 18-29.
Chng, M. (2011). Modernising the Criminal Justice Framework – The Criminal Procedure Code 2010. SAcLJ , 23−57.
Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (2013). Date of entry into force: November 19, 2012. English version. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16802f6016.
Daly, K. (2003). Aims of the Criminal Justice System. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/29451914 .
Eski, S. & Eski, Y. (2017). Dutch tolerance of torture? CIA extraordinary rendition flights in the Netherlands. Palgrave Communications, https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.84.
Furtmayr, H. & Frewer, A. (2010). Documentation of torture and the Istanbul Protocol: applied medical ethics. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 13(3), 279- 286.
Florian Jessberger, Bad Torture − Good Torture? What International Criminal Lawyers May Learn from the Recent Trial of Police Officers in Germany, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Volume 3, Issue 5, November 2005, Pages 1059–1073, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqi076
Gross, O. (2007). Torture and an Ethics of Responsibility. Law, culture and the humanities, 3(1), 35-54.
González-Núñez, D. (2018). The widespread use of torture in Mexico and its impacts on the rule of law. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(10), 1335- 1354.
Geyer, F. (2007). Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Member States’ Indirect Use of Extraordinary Rendition and the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/31280/263_Fruit%20of%20the%20Poisonous% 20Tree.pdf.
Zhurba, A. (2014). Meta kryminalnoho sudochynstva: teoretychni problemy zmistu [Goal of criminal jurisdiction: theoretical problems of content]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu, 25, 248-250.
Kahraman, Ö. E. (2018). Destructiveness: An Inner Drive of the Human Nature or a Fact of the Social Structure? Beytulhikme Int.J.Phil, 8 (1), 119-129.
Kotyuk, I. & Kotyuk, O. (2015). Meta yak filosofsko-prahmatychnyi oriyentyr kryminalnoho provadzhennya [Goal as philosophical and pragmatic guide of criminal proceedings]. Yurydychnyi chasopys Natsionalnoyi akademiyi vnutrishnikh sprav, 2, 160-171.
Kovalenko, Ye. (2018). U kruhoobihu dobra i zla: upravlinske mystetstvo Nicolo Machiavelli [In the cycle of good and evil: Managerial art of Nicolo Machiavelli]. Kultura i suchasnist, 2, 3-10.
Lantsedova, Yu. (2021). Osnovni protyurichya mizh pryntsypom zmahalnosti ta vstanovlennyam obyektyvnoyi istyny u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Main contradictions between the principle of competition and establishment of the objective truth in criminal proceedings]Основні протиріччя між принципом змагальності та встановленням об’єктивної істини у кримінальному провадженні. Suchasne pravo v epokhu sotsialnykh zmin. Ternopil: Vektor.
Malyarchuk, T. (2009). Pro osnovni napryamy optymizatsiyi norm Kryminalnoprotsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrayiny [On main trends of optimizing the norms of Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine]. Pidpryyemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo, 12, 180−183.
Morgan, R. (2000). The utilitarian justification of torture: Denial, desert and disinformation. Punishment & Society, 2(2), 181-196.
Packer, H. (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113 (1), 1-68.
Patyuk, S. (2013). Zavdannya kryminalnoho provadzhennya Ukrayiny [Tasks of criminal proceedings of Ukraine]. Naukovyi visnyk Natsionalnoyi akademiyi vnutrishnikh sprav, 1, 95-101.
Pikh, Yu. (2020). Zasada vstanovlennya materialnoyi pravdy (istyny) u svitli reform kryminalnoho protsesualnoho zakonodavstva respubliky Polshchi [Principle of establishment of material truth in the light of reforms of criminal procedural legislation of republic of Poland]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu, 71, 132- 146.
Pikh, Yu. (2019). Materialna istyna yak meta ta zasada kryminalnoho provadzhennya federatyvnboyi respubliky Nimechyny [Material truth as goal and principle of criminal proceedings of Federal Republic of Germany]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu, 69, 161-172.
Pohribnyi, О. (2006). Problema spivvidnoshennya tsilei i zasobiv u pravookhoronnii diyalnosti: sotsioloho-pravovyi analiz [Prplem of correlation of goals and means in law-enforcement activity: sociological and legal analysis]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav, 33, 8-12.
Popovych, M. (2015). Vlada i moral [Power and morality].Visnyk NAN Ukrayiny, 5, 22-24.
Roach, K. (1999). Four Models of the Criminal Process. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 89, 671-716.
Simonovych, D. (2014). Meta ta zavdannya kryminalnoho provadzhennya [Goal and objectives of crimina;l proceedings]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu, 29 (2: 3), 265-269.
Skorupka, J. (2010). Ewolucja paradygmatu procesu karnego. Wrocławsko-Lwowskie Zeszyty Prawnicze, 1, 129-160.
Stamp, F. (1998). Die Wahrheit im Strafverfahren. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Schünemann, B. (2015). Die Wahrheitsfindung durch den Richter im Strafverfahren. Grundlagenseminar über die Soziologie und Psychologie des Strafverfahrens. München.
Sorochinsky, M. (2009). Prosecuting Torturers, Protecting "Child Molesters": Toward a Power Balance Model of Criminal Process for International Human Rights Law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 31, 157-229.
Shybiko, V. (2011). Shchodo pryznachennya i zavdan kryminalnoho sudochynstva Ukrayiny [On assigning and objectives of criminal jurisdiction of Ukraine]. Visnyk Kuyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka, 88, 16-19
Vlasenko, Yu. & Shoker, R. (2017). Fenomen makiavealizmu v suchasnomu naukovomu dyskursi [Machiavellianism phenomenon in modern scientific discourse]. Intelekt, osobystist, tsyvilizatsiya, 14, 70-77.
Virotchenko, S. (2015). Zavdannya kryminalnoho provadzhennya [Objectives of criminal proceedings]. Pravo i suspilstvo, 5-2, 201−205.
Weßlau, E. (2014). Wahrheit und Legenden: die Debatte über den adversatorischen Strafprozess. ZIS, 11, 558-564.
Wróbel, P. (2019). Istota rzetelnego procesu karnego a sprawiedliwość proceduralna. Progress. Journal of Young Researchers, 6, 33−46.
Yahunov, D. (2020). «Malleus Maleficarum» suchasnoho suspilstva: peredumovy i poshyrenist tortur u XXI stolitti ta polityka protydiyi torturam [«Malleus Maleficarum » of modern society: preconditions and prevalence of torture in XXI century and policy of counteracting torture]. Visnyk DonNU imeni Vasylya Stusa, 58−97.