CC BY
5The analysis of scientific literature and dissertation researches, practical experiment on a problem of dual interaction shows that despite its readiness in pedagogical science, the problem of dual interaction at the creative-pedagogical level, taking into account structure, contents, features of creative and design activity of the modern worker was not considered and became the subject of our research (Gayneev, 2016).
Therefore, on the basis of the directions considered by us and the developed model of dual creative-pedagogical interaction, we try to define the concept "dual creative-pedagogical interaction".
Dual creative-pedagogical interaction of spheres of professional education and production in creative vocational training of the modern skilled worker can be defined as the cooperation of educational institution with the employer in realization creative vocational training of the modern skilled worker providing his competences adequate to requirements of labor market and being equitable to interests of personality, society and state.
REFERENCES
1. "Bill project: it is early to finish discussion" (2012). Professional education. Capital. No. 4. Pp. 2-15.
2. Galaguzova M. A., Gayneev E. R. (2013) "Creative and pedagogical interaction of educational institution and basic enterprise in competitions of professional skill". Pedagogical education in Russia. No. 4. Pp. 252-257.
3. Gayneev E. R. (2016) "Structure and content of creative and design activity of the modern skilled worker". Scientific and methodological electronic magazine "Kontsept". Vol. 15. Pp. 251-255. Available at: http://e-koncept.ru/2016/86951.htm.
4. Nikolay Merkushkin opened the first All-Russian competition of professional skill "The national WorldSkills Russia-2013 championship": Available at: samara.ru >read/4887127.
TOPICAL ISSUES OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Abstract
The paper deals with the proofs in criminal proceeding, their legacy and opportunities of their use.
Keywords
criminal proceedings, proofs, legal, right, law
AUTHOR Vadim Gerasenkov
Senior teacher Department of Civil Disciplines Bryansk Institute of Management and Business Bryansk, Russia mr.va.ger@mail. ru
Knowledge of the past events is a task of many branches of knowledge and human activity. In a certain degree, this conclusion can be extended to knowledge of crime event. Unlike knowledge of other spheres of activity, which are not connected with adoption of legally significant decisions, process of knowledge of criminal legal proceedings is
ISSUE 3, 2016
55
regulated by the law and is made as according to the provided order. Circumstances of crime commission are established by means of proofs. The order of their collecting, fixing, check and assessment called proof is also strictly regulated by criminal-procedural law (Criminal trial: Textbook, 2011).
Set of circumstances provided by criminal and criminal-procedural legislation, which are subjects to establishment (proof) on each criminal case, irrespective of its specifics, for its correct permission, is called proof (Grinenko, 2009).
According to article 73 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by criminal case production subjects to proof are:
- crime event (time, place, way and other circumstances of crime commission);
- guilt of the person in crime commission, form of his fault and motives;
- circumstances characterizing the identity of the accused;
- character and extent of the harm made by a crime;
- circumstances excluding crime and punishability of act;
- circumstances commuting and aggravating a penalty;
- circumstances, which can cause release from criminal liability and punishment;
- circumstances confirming that the property, which is a subject of confiscation according to article 104.1 of the criminal code of Russian Federation, is received as a result of crime or is the income from this property or was used or intended for use as the tool of a crime or financing terrorism, organized group, illegal paramilitary group, criminal community (criminal organization).
The circumstances promoting commission of crime are subject to identification.
All listed above circumstances, which are subject to proof by criminal case production, relating to a subject of proof, are established by means of obtaining proofs, i.e. to any data, on the basis of which court, prosecutor, investigator establishes existence or absence of the circumstances specified in article 73 of Criminal Procedure Code, and also other circumstances important for criminal case determined by the criminal procedure legislation.
Proceeding from the analysis of provisions of article 86 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, it is possible to allocate three groups of subjects of criminal legal proceedings, which according to this article are obliged or allocated with the right on collecting proofs.
The first group of subjects, who are obliged to collect proofs on criminal case, is investigator, prosecutor and court, who carry out process of collecting proofs by production of investigative and other procedural actions provided by the criminal procedure legislation.
The second group of subjects is the suspecteded, accused, victim, civil claimant, civil respondent and their representatives, who have the right to collect and submit written documents and subjects as proofs.
The third group is defender, who has the right to collect proofs by receiving subjects, documents and other data; poll of persons, but only from their consent; reclamations of references, characteristics, and other documents from public authorities, local governments, public associations and organizations, which, in turn, are obliged to provide the documents requested by the defender or their copies.
Unlike the Criminal Procedure Code of RSFSR, the new criminal-procedural law defined the main properties, which the proof in criminal legal proceedings has to answer. The first of these properties is relevancy. This is such property of the proof, which is expressed in communication of actual data with the circumstances, which are subject to proof on criminal case. To establish objective, logical connection between the actual data containing the relevant source, and the circumstances entering a proof subject, is often quite difficult. Therefore, resolving an issue of relevancy of proofs, it is necessary to
investigate a question of existence or lack of the following forms of communication: 1) cause-effect, 2) spatial, 3) temporary (Criminal trial: Textbook, 2011).
The admissibility of data on the facts as proofs means compliance of the proof to requirements of the criminal-procedural law concerning a source of the proof, way, order of its receiving and fixing; the subject which obtained the evidence. Though in the law there is no the situation defining concept of an admissibility, the conclusion about recognition behind proofs of such property logically follows from the contents part 2 Article. 50 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: "The evidence obtained with violation of the law admits not having validity" and part 1 Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the evidence obtained with violation of requirements of the criminal-procedural law is inadmissible. Inadmissible proofs, in turn, have no validity and cannot be the basis for charge, and also be used for proof of any of circumstances provided by Art. 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Grigoriev, Pobedkin, Yashin, 2005).
According to part 2nd Article 48 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and on the basis of Article 49 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, each detainee taken into custody has the right to use the help of the lawyer (defender) from the moment of his actual detention and even at earlier stage of investigation. Every accused owing to the specified constitutional norm and on the basis of Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation has the right to use help of the lawyer (defender) from the moment of brining a charge. At violation of this constitutional right, all indications of the detainee taken into custody, accused and results of the investigative actions, which are carried out with his participation, have to be considered by court as the evidence obtained with violation of the law ("About some questions...", 1997).
The following property along with relevancy and admissibility, which any of proofs has to possess, is its reliability. That means compliance of the data containing in sources of proofs to reality.
Sufficiency characterizes not separately taken proof, but their set. It assumes that the proofs collected on criminal case give the grounds to the subject of proof to consider the circumstances making a proof subject proved. Thus the body of evidence estimated from the point of view of sufficiency joins only those from them, which meet the requirements of relevancy, admissibility and reliability. The set of evidence consisting only of confession of the suspected accused of the defendant cannot be considered sufficient. According to part 2 Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, recognition the accused's fault in crime can be the basis for charge only at confirmation of his guilt by set of other proofs, available in criminal case (Criminal trial: Textbook, 2011).
According to Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the proofs received with violation of requirements of the criminal-procedural legislation are inadmissible, have no validity and cannot be the basis for charge, and be used for proof of any of the circumstances making a subject of proof and provided by Article 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Inadmissible proofs are:
- the indications of the suspected, accused, given during pre-judicial criminal case production in the absence of the defender, including cases of refusal of the defender, and not confirmed with the suspected accused of court;
- the indications of the victim, witness, based on guess, assumption, hearing, and indications of the witness, who cannot specify a source of the awareness;
- other evidence obtained with violation of requirements of the criminal procedure legislation.
The example of evidence obtained with violation of the law is the protocol of interrogation of the suspected, accused, his spouse or close relative, without explanation
ISSUE 3, 2016
57
Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and with the simultaneous warning of criminal liability for refusal of evidence ("About some questions...", 1997); the expert opinion, when the resolution on purpose of judicial examination was not timely (before production of judicial examination) provided to the accused that he could declare branch to the expert; to present additional questions for obtaining the expert opinion, etc. ("Definition of Cassation chamber.", 1995). In case of recognition of the proof received with violation of the law, court has to motivate the decision on an exception it from body of evidence on case, having specified what violation of the law was expressed ("Definition of Cassation chamber.", 1995).
In the analysis of provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there is a topical issue concerning inadmissibility of proofs, in the case provided by item 1 part 2 of the specified article, when the indications of the suspected accused, given during pre-judicial criminal case production in the absence of the defender, including the cases of refusal of the defender and which are not confirmed with the suspected or accused of court are the inadmissible proof and, therefore, it is not a subject to judicial research. In the cases provided by Article. 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which provide obligatory participation of the defender in criminal legal proceedings, the defender was not appointed and respectively the evidence obtained during investigative and other procedural actions including interrogations of the suspected or the defender accused without participation, are inadmissible. But when by criminal case production of preliminary investigation, there are no the bases of obligatory participation of the defender provided p.1 by Art. 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and suspecteded or accused refused the help of the defender according to part 1 Article 52 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there is a question why indications of specified persons, data during pre-judicial criminal case production are inadmissible in case of not confirmation of these indications by them during judicial proceedings.
If to address to part 2 Article 50 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which evidence obtained with violation of the federal law is not allowed, it is possible to draw a conclusion that the situation fixed in item 1 part 2 Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation not fully corresponds to this provision of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as in the case of violations of standards of the criminal procedure legislation stated above from the persons making preliminary investigation on criminal case, it was not allowed because, according to part 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there were no bases of obligatory participation of the defender in criminal case, and suspecteded or accused refused the help of the defender that is his inalienable right. Therefore, indications, given at interrogation of specified persons in absence of the defender are obtained according to the law, on condition of observance of all procedural requirements imposed by the criminal procedure legislation to production of interrogation of suspecteds or accused of commission of crimes.
To the solution of the problem stated above modification of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in item 1 part 2 Article 75 in the following edition "the indications of the suspected, accused, given during pre-judicial criminal case production in the absence of the defender, in cases when participation of the defender in criminal case according to part 1 Article 51 of the present Code is obligatory".
REFERENCES
1. "About some questions of application of the Constitution of the Russian Federation by vessels at justice implementation: The resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 31, 1995 No. 8" (1997). The Collection of resolutions of Plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR and RSFSR (Russian Federation) on criminal cases. Pp. 534-535.
2. Criminal trial: Textbook (2011). Moscow. Volters Kluver. P. 291.
3. "Definition of Cassation chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of May 31, 1995" (1995). The Russian justice. No. 11. P. 37.
4. Grinenko A.V. (Ed.) (2009) Criminal trial: Textbook. 2nd edition, revised. Moscow. Norma. P.107.
5. Grigoriev V. N., Pobedkin A.V., Yashin V. N. (2005) Criminal trial: textbook. Moscow. Eksmo publishing house. Pp. 172.
TECHNOLOGICAL FEATURES OF GARDENING AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
Abstract
The paper deals with the modern questions of innovative development of industrial gardening of economic entities of agrarian-industrial complex (AIC). The authors analyze the work of production divisions (centers of expenses) and agrarian organizations in general on the basis of expensive-cost descriptors. The authors give scientifically based arguments for interrelation of separate types of the registration block in registration-analytical cluster using uniform system of indicators for administrative decision-making.
Keywords
gardening, production, management accounting, registration-analytical cluster, descriptors, management of agrarian-industrial subject, agrarian-industrial complex, ecological account
AUTHOR
Victor Govdya Yulia Bunina
PhD in Economics, Professor Master student
Accounting Department Accounting Department
Kuban State Agricultural University Kuban State Agricultural University
Krasnodar, Russia Krasnodar, Russia
Konstantin Velichko
Student
Registration and Financial Faculty
Kuban State Agricultural University
Krasnodar, Russia
degalceva_ [email protected]
The need for development and improvement of gardening management accounting is caused by the developed new economic situation in the market of fruit and berry production and in the branch itself. The Russian market is flooded by import production, which is externally attractive, but not always high-quality. In this regard, great demands to quality and assortment of domestic fruits and berries appear to maintain the competition. The target state program for development gardening in the Krasnodar Krai provides universal introduction of innovations in process of fruits and berries production. "Innovation" is interpreted as transformation of potential scientific and technical progress into the real production process, embodied in new products and technologies. These innovations are such as use of new equipment, new technological processes or new market ensuring production; introduction of production with new qualitative properties; use of
