AccScience Publishing / BIJP / Volume 11 / Issue 4 / DOI: 10.18491/beytulhikme.1804
Submit to BIJP
Cite this article
9
Views
Related Info Links
Google Scholar
More by Authors Links
Viecheslav Blikhar
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Viecheslav Blikhar1 ,  Oksana Dufeniuk1 ,  Mariia Blikhar2
Show Less
1 Lviv State University of Internal Affairs 79007, Lviv , Ukraine
2 Lviv Polytechnic National University, Department of Consitutional and International Law 79000, Lviv , Ukraine
BIJP 2021, 11(4), 1801–1817; https://doi.org/10.18491/beytulhikme.1804
Received: 9 June 2021 | Published online: 7 November 2021
© 2021 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
XML
Cite
Abstract

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.

Keywords
Criminal process
goal means
material justice
procedural justice
the establishment of truth.
References
  1. Bobechko, N. (2017). Meta kryminalnoho provadzhennya [Goal of criminal proceedings]. Yurydychnui visnyk, 2, 126-135.
  2. 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.
  3. Chojniak, Ł. (2013). O zasadzie prawdy materialnej w procesie karnym w świetle Konstytucji RP. Państwo i Prawo, 9, 18-29.
  4. Chng, M. (2011). Modernising the Criminal Justice Framework – The Criminal Procedure Code 2010. SAcLJ , 23−57.
  5. Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (2013). Date of entry into force: November 19, 2012. English version. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16802f6016.
  6. Daly, K. (2003). Aims of the Criminal Justice System. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29451914 .
  7. 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.
  8. Furtmayr, H. & Frewer, A. (2010). Documentation of torture and the Istanbul Protocol: applied medical ethics. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 13(3), 279-286.
  9. 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
  10. Gross, O. (2007). Torture and an Ethics of Responsibility. Law, culture and the humanities, 3(1), 35-54.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Malyarchuk, T. (2009). Pro osnovni napryamy optymizatsiyi norm Kryminalno-protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrayiny [On main trends of optimizing the norms of Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine]. Pidpryyemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo, 12, 180−183.
  19. Morgan, R. (2000). The utilitarian justification of torture: Denial, desert and disinformation. Punishment & Society, 2(2), 181-196.
  20. Packer, H. (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113 (1), 1-68.
  21. Patyuk, S. (2013). Zavdannya kryminalnoho provadzhennya Ukrayiny [Tasks of criminal proceedings of Ukraine]. Naukovyi visnyk Natsionalnoyi akademiyi vnutrishnikh sprav, 1, 95-101.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Popovych, M. (2015). Vlada i moral [Power and morality].Visnyk NAN Ukrayiny, 5, 22-24.
  26. Roach, K. (1999). Four Models of the Criminal Process. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 89, 671-716.
  27. 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.
  28. Skorupka, J. (2010). Ewolucja paradygmatu procesu karnego. Wrocławsko-Lwowskie Zeszyty Prawnicze, 1, 129-160.
  29. Stamp, F. (1998). Die Wahrheit im Strafverfahren. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
  30. Schünemann, B. (2015). Die Wahrheitsfindung durch den Richter im Strafverfahren. Grundlagenseminar über die Soziologie und Psychologie des Strafverfahrens. München.
  31. 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. 
  32. 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.
  33. Vlasenko, Yu. & Shoker, R. (2017). Fenomen makiavealizmu v suchasnomu naukovomu dyskursi [Machiavellianism phenomenon in modern scientific discourse]. Intelekt, osobystist, tsyvilizatsiya, 14, 70-77.
  34. Virotchenko, S. (2015). Zavdannya kryminalnoho provadzhennya [Objectives of criminal proceedings]. Pravo i suspilstvo, 5-2, 201−205.
  35. Weßlau, E. (2014). Wahrheit und Legenden: die Debatte über den adversatorischen Strafprozess. ZIS, 11, 558-564.
  36. Wróbel, P. (2019). Istota rzetelnego procesu karnego a sprawiedliwość proceduralna. Progress. Journal of Young Researchers, 6, 33−46.
  37. 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.
Share
Back to top
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Print ISSN: 1303-8303, Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept