How do forensic psychologists work? Forensic psychology.

in the course “Forensic Psychology”

“Subject, tasks and structure of forensic psychology”

Introduction

1. Subject, tasks and methods of forensic psychology

2. History of the development of forensic psychology

Conclusion

Introduction

The specificity of the subject of forensic psychology lies in the originality of the vision of these states, in the study of their legal significance for establishing the truth, in the search for scientifically based methods of reducing the possibility of violation of legal norms through psychological corrective states, as well as the personality traits of offenders, the investigator, conducting the preliminary investigation and the court, examining a case in court, he clarifies the complex interweaving of human relationships, sometimes incalculable psychological, subjective qualities of people and the motives that pushed a person to commit a crime.

Having an accurate understanding of why we act the way we do gives us the opportunity to better understand our lives and manage them more consciously. The investigator, prosecutor and defense attorney, administrator and teacher of correctional colonies must be armed with psychological knowledge that allows them to navigate the complex and confusing relationships and conflicts that they have to deal with. Undoubtedly, knowledge of psychological science is necessary for everyone who deals with people, who is called upon to influence and carry out educational work. The science of mental life and human activity, which studies such processes as sensation and perception, memorization, thinking, feelings and will, personality traits with individual characteristics, temperament, character, age, inclinations, cannot but have a very direct relationship to the detection and investigation of crimes , consideration of cases in court. To a large extent, the tasks of forensic psychology are determined by the need to improve the practical activities of the justice authorities; investigators and court workers, everyday faced with various manifestations of the psyche of the defendant, victim, witness, of course, try to understand the complexities of their mental world, in order to correctly understand the main way to evaluate it. The professions of investigator, prosecutor and judge gradually form certain ideas about the human psyche, forcing them to operate with the principles of practical psychology and to be somewhat knowledgeable in this area. However, the volume and quality of such knowledge, mainly intuitive, cannot go beyond the individual experience and personal data of a particular employee. In addition, such empirical knowledge about the human mental world, acquired from case to case, is unsystematic and therefore cannot satisfy the ever-increasing demands of life. For the most objective and qualified solution to the many issues that constantly arise before forensic investigators, along with legal and general erudition, professional experience, extensive psychological knowledge is also required.

1. Subject, tasks and structure of forensic psychology

Forensic psychology includes various areas of scientific knowledge, is an applied science and belongs equally to both psychology and jurisprudence. In the field of social relations regulated by legal norms, the mental activity of people acquires unique features that are determined by the specifics of human activity in the field of legal regulation.

Being an active member of society, a person performs actions that are subject to certain rules. Rules that are binding for a specific set (mass) of people are called norms of behavior and are established by the people themselves in the interests of either the whole society or individual groups and classes.

All norms of behavior are usually divided into technical and social.

The former regulate human activity in the use of natural resources (consumption rates of fuel, electricity, water, etc.) and tools.

Social norms regulate relationships between people. Social norms include customs, morals and law. All social norms, based on the assessments accepted in society, require either abstaining from wrongdoing or taking some kind of active action.

The methodological feature of forensic psychology is that the center of gravity in cognition is transferred to the individual as a subject of activity.

Thus, if the law primarily identifies the offender in a person, then forensic psychology examines the person in the offender, in the witness, in the victim, etc.

The mental state, as well as the stable characteristics of the character and personality of the victim, offender, witness, develop and proceed in accordance with general psychological and psychophysiological laws.

While studying the shadow sides of life, sometimes in its most repulsive manifestations, investigators and judges must maintain personal insensitivity (immunity) to negative influences and avoid unwanted personality distortions, the so-called professional deformation (suspicion, self-confidence, accusatory bias, etc.).

The peculiarities of the work of these workers make moral and psychological hardening necessary, since they are associated with a significant strain of mental and moral forces.

A significant increase in crime, as well as the development of its most dangerous forms: organized crime, sexual murders, contract killings, etc., place demands on increasing the efficiency of the law enforcement system. On the other hand, the protection of the rights and interests of individual citizens in the process of bringing them to criminal responsibility is increasing and there is a tendency towards humanizing the process of investigation and judicial consideration of criminal cases. This determines the need for a high level of professional competence of law enforcement officials as the main integral factor ensuring both the protection of the interests of individuals and organizations from criminal attacks, and compliance with all legal rights and interests of citizens and groups, as well as compliance with ethical standards. Professional competence itself is largely determined by the personal potential of a lawyer, that is, by a system of psychological factors that can be united under the general concept of psychological culture.

Lawyers need to be able to rationally distribute their strengths and abilities in order to maintain productivity throughout the entire working day, to possess professional psychological qualities in order to obtain optimal evidentiary data with the least expenditure of nervous energy. In the consistent development of such professional qualities as flexibility of mind and character, keen observation and tenacious memory, self-control and endurance, integrity and fairness, organization and independence, the recommendations of psychological science are of great importance, which indicates the right ways and means of their formation. Along with this, further growth in the efficiency of the work of forensic investigators requires a comprehensive, in-depth development of the psychological foundations of forensic tactics, as well as the study or knowledge of the psychology of other participants in criminal proceedings (accused, victim, witness, etc.). The psychological competence of forensic investigators helps “to prevent mistakes, sometimes fraught with serious consequences, that can arise when judging human actions due to underestimation of psychological aspects”

Forensic psychology is a scientific and practical discipline that studies the psychological patterns of the human-law system and develops recommendations aimed at increasing the effectiveness of this system.

The methodological basis of forensic psychology is a systemic-structural analysis of the activity process, which is considered in conjunction with the structure of the individual and the system of legal norms.

Thus, the focus of this science is on the psychological problems of reconciling man and law as elements of one system.

Investigating the problem of the subject and system of forensic psychology, we proceed from the fundamental position that psychological patterns in the field of law enforcement activities are divided into two large categories: law-abiding activities and activities associated with certain offenses. These methodological prerequisites, as well as the principle of hierarchy, determine the construction of a system of forensic psychology, in which psychological patterns in the field of law-abiding behavior and in the field of social pathology are consistently analyzed.

Forensic psychology is a special part of legal psychology, which is often called forensic psychology, and consists of the following sections: criminal psychology, victim psychology, psychology of juvenile delinquency, investigative psychology, trial psychology, forensic psychological examination and correctional labor psychology.

Forensic psychology studies a person in its entirety; on the other hand, this scientific discipline has clearly expressed legal aspects that determine a complex of objective laws studied by the discipline. She develops psychological foundations:

Law-abiding behavior (legal awareness, morality, public opinion, social stereotypes);

Criminal behavior (personality structure of the criminal, criminal stereotype, structure of the criminal group, criminogenic situation, personality structure of the victim and the role of these structures in the genesis of criminal behavior);

Law enforcement (crime prevention, investigative psychology, psychology of the judicial process, forensic psychological examination);

Resocialization of offenders (correctional labor psychology, psychology of adaptation after release from correctional institutions);

Psychology of minors.

Forensic psychology solves the following problems:

Studying the psychological patterns of the impact of law and law enforcement on individuals, groups and teams;

To optimize law enforcement activities, it is necessary, firstly, a detailed description of all aspects of this complex professional activity, personal qualities and skills that are implemented in it, and, secondly, scientifically based recommendations on the compliance of a specific human personality with the objective requirements for the legal profession and about the methodology for selecting and placing legal personnel.

The synthesis of psychology and jurisprudence in scientific disciplines - legal psychology and the psychology of legal work - should lead to the mutual enrichment of these sciences, the resolution of one of the most pressing problems in this intersecting area - increasing the efficiency of law enforcement.

Forensic psychology (in the modern sense) is a science that studies various psychological aspects of personality and activity in conditions of legal regulation. It can successfully develop and solve the complex of problems facing it only thanks to a systematic approach.

The emergence of special disciplines is explained, of course, by the growing differentiation and progress of analytical methods. However, in the field of human science, this trend is intertwined with synthetic approaches to real integral or complex types of human activity. Therefore, specialization in this area is most often combined with the unification of individual particular theories into a general theory of a particular formation, property or type of human activity.

Different scientific disciplines have different approaches to the study of the genesis of offenses, since the structure of a particular offense can be analyzed from different points of view. The legal approach characterizes it as an act consisting of four elements: object, subject, objective and subjective damage. For criminology, sociology and psychology, a dynamic genetic approach is more productive, allowing the study of human behavior in development. An important task of criminal psychology is to identify internal personal prerequisites that, in combination with certain external circumstances, can create a criminogenic situation - that is, to determine criminogenic personality qualities. Further, within the framework of criminal psychology, specific personality characteristics are established that determine these prerequisites in it (defects in legal consciousness, morality, culture of emotions, etc.), and a causal relationship is established between the identified defects and the tendency to commit a certain category of crimes. Criminal psychology studies the mechanism of personality immunity to a criminogenic situation and, through knowledge of the patterns of this phenomenon, develops recommendations for crime prevention. Similar tasks (“on the other side of the barrier”) in a criminogenic situation are set and must be solved by the psychology of the victim. The psychology of the victim studies the factors in the formation of his personality, his conduct in the genesis of the crime, and also develops practical recommendations for the method of interrogating the victim and cultivating in people moral and volitional qualities that would provide protection from criminal attacks. The psychology of the victim is closely connected with criminal law, criminology, social psychology and personality psychology.

Psychological studies of the personality of the victim and his activities seem to be very relevant, as they contribute to the solution of a number of issues: more correct classification of crimes, the study of their causes and conditions, a comprehensive investigation of criminal cases, the discovery of new evidence, etc.

The problem includes the following aspects: methods for studying the personality of the victim, studying the behavior of the victim immediately before the crime event, at the time of the crime event, after it and, finally, at the stage of the preliminary investigation. The complex problem of the formation of criminal intent can be studied quite deeply, primarily within the framework of criminal psychology and the psychology of the victim.

In a special subsection of forensic psychology (criminal psychology), it examines the psychological aspects of careless crime, including domestic and professional negligence.

Crime is a great social evil, and juvenile delinquency is an evil that has been multiplied many times over. A significant number of especially dangerous repeat offenders committed their first crime before the age of 18. A society that wants to get rid of crime, first of all, must raise children correctly.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, juvenile delinquents include those who do not have good relationships in the school community.

Forensic psychology studies the antisocial behavior of a minor and the influence of external microenvironmental factors on it, as well as the personality characteristics of a teenager, which determine his individual response to various “life failures,” and develops recommendations aimed at preventing child and youth crime.

A preliminary investigation is a purposeful process, the purpose of which is to reconstruct (restore) a crime event that took place in the past, based on traces discovered by the investigator in the present.

We can distinguish at least two directions in this process: the first is the reconstruction of the crime event itself and the objective conditions that contributed to its commission. The final goal of such reconstruction is to obtain comprehensive information about the object and the objective side of the crime.

The second direction of reconstruction is the study of the personality of the criminal in its evolution, the study of the mechanism of formation of criminal intent, the criminal attitude, the study of the subjective attitude of the criminal to the committed act. Such a reconstruction is necessary in order to obtain comprehensive information about the subject and the subjective side of the crime, about the specific causes of this crime, which manifest themselves through the criminal attitudes and criminal behavior of the person under study.

Within the framework of investigative psychology, the psychological foundations of the most important investigative actions (inspection, interrogation, search, identification, etc.) and psychological recommendations aimed at increasing their effectiveness are developed.

The psychology of the consideration of a criminal case in court examines the patterns of mental activity of all persons participating in the consideration, as well as the educational impact of the trial and the verdict on the defendant and on other persons, the role of public opinion as a factor influencing the trial, etc.

The following sciences are closely related to this section: criminal law, criminal procedure, social psychology, judicial ethics.

Psychological analysis of the judicial process makes it possible to develop recommendations aimed at increasing the effectiveness of justice, developing the culture of the process, and strengthening the educational impact on all its participants.

These tasks cannot be solved without the use of data from various sciences that study the personality of a person, his relationship with the team and the role of various factors that positively or negatively affect the personality of the convict. One of the most relevant and conducive to solving the above problems is correctional labor psychology, which studies the patterns of mental activity of a person serving a sentence, and the main factors influencing him in the process of re-education: regime, work, team, educational influence, as well as optional factors – family, friendships with people in freedom, studies, hobbies, etc.

The synthesis of psychology and jurisprudence in a new scientific discipline - legal psychology - should lead to the mutual enrichment of both sciences and to the resolution of one of the most pressing problems - the problem of increasing the efficiency of law enforcement.

2. History of the development of forensic psychology

Forensic psychology is one of the relatively young branches of psychological science. The first attempts to systematically solve certain problems of jurisprudence using psychological methods date back to the 18th century.

The following three stages can be distinguished in the development of forensic psychology;

1. Early history of forensic psychology - XVIII century. and the first half of the 19th century.

2. The initial formation of forensic psychology as a science was at the end of the 19th century. and the beginning of the 20th century.

3. History of forensic psychology in the 20th century.

Early history of forensic psychology

Like most new sciences that arose at the intersection of various branches of human knowledge, legal psychology in the first stages of its development was not independent and did not have special personnel. Individual psychologists, lawyers, and even scientists specializing in other fields of knowledge tried to solve issues related to this discipline. The initial stage of development is associated with the need for legal sciences to turn to psychology to solve specific problems that could not be solved by traditional methods of jurisprudence. Forensic psychology, like many other branches of psychological science, has moved from purely speculative constructions to scientific and experimental research. One of the first authors who examined a number of forensic psychological aspects and the idea of ​​humanism was M. M. Shcherbatov (1733–1790). In his writings, he demanded that laws be developed taking into account the individual characteristics of a person; he was one of the first to raise the issue of parole. He positively assessed the labor factor in the re-education of a criminal.

The works of I.T. are also of interest. Pososhkov (1652-1726), which gave psychological recommendations regarding the interrogation of accused and witnesses, classification of criminals, and touched upon some other issues.

The spread of the idea of ​​correction and re-education of the criminal has necessitated turning to psychology for their scientific substantiation. Above this at the beginning of the 19th century. worked in Russia V.K. Elpatievsky, P.D. Lodiy, L.S. Gordienko, Chr. Stelzer et al.

However, psychology itself, which at that time was of a metaphysical, speculative nature, could not, even in alliance with criminal law, develop sufficiently substantiated criteria and methods for studying the human personality.

A significant number of works on forensic psychology appeared in Russia in the 3rd quarter of the 19th century.

Psychological issues of evaluating eyewitness testimony occupied the outstanding French mathematician Laplace. In “Essays on the Philosophy of the Theory of Probability,” published in France in 1814, Laplace attempts to give a materialist interpretation of the issue of the reliability of judicial decisions. He considered that the elements of probability that a given testimony is true are composed of:

From the probabilities of the event itself, which the witness narrates;

From the probability of four hypotheses regarding the person being questioned:

The witness does not make mistakes and does not lie;

The witness lies, but is mistaken;

The witness is not mistaken, but he is lying;

The witness is both lying and making mistakes.

Laplace understood how difficult it was to assess the veracity or falsity of witness testimony due to the large number of accompanying circumstances, but he believed that the court in its judgments does not rely on mathematical certainty, but only on probability. But nevertheless, Laplace’s scheme is interesting as the first attempt to create a scientific method for assessing eyewitness testimony.

For a long time, the study of the problems of forensic psychology did not go beyond these first attempts. In the second half of the 19th century, not only the successful development of the natural sciences, but also the increase in crime in all leading capitalist countries served as an impetus for the further revival and expansion of forensic psychological research.

The end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. associated with the intensive development of psychology, history and a number of legal disciplines (primarily criminal law scientists), representing these sciences in that period, were occupied by progressive ones (I.M. Sechenov, V.M. Bekhterev, S.S. Korsakov, V. .P. Serbsky, A.F. Kosh) scientists.

The development of psychology, psychiatry and law led to the need to distinguish legal psychology as an independent scientific discipline; Kovalevsky in 1899 raised the question of separating psychopathology and psychology, as well as introducing these sciences into the course of legal education.

Around the same period, a struggle developed between the anthropological and sociological schools of criminal law. The founder of the anthropological school was C. Lombroso, who created the theory of the “innate” criminal, who, due to his atavistic traits, cannot be corrected.

Representatives of the sociological school used the ideas of utopian socialism and attached decisive importance to social factors in explaining the causes of crime. Some ideas of the sociological school carried elements that were progressive for their time.

At the beginning of the 20th century. mental research methods are beginning to be used in legal psychology.

The most thorough work on forensic psychology belonged to Hans Gross. His “Criminal Psychology,” published in 1898, used the results of general pathological experimental studies by a number of psychologists.

In the study of the psychology of crime investigation, a serious step forward was the direct application of the experimental method of psychology. One of the creators of this method, the French psychologist Alfred Binet, was the first to experimentally study the question of the influence of suggestion on children's testimony. In 1900, he published a book entitled “Suggestibility,” in which a special chapter is devoted to the influence of suggestion on children’s testimony. In it, A. Binet makes some interesting conclusions:

Answers to questions always contain errors;

In order to properly evaluate evidence, court records should detail both the questions and the answers to them.

In 1902, experiments to determine the degree of reliability of eyewitness testimony were carried out by the German psychologist William Stern. Based on his data, V. Stern argued that witness testimony is fundamentally unreliable and flawed, since “forgetting is the rule, and remembering is the exception.” V. Stern reported the results of his research at a meeting of the Berlin Psychological Society, and in Europe they aroused great interest in legal circles. Subsequently, V. Stern created a personalistic concept of memory, which had a pronounced idealistic character. According to this concept, human memory is not a reflection of objective reality, but acts only as its distortion for the sake of the narrow egoistic interests of the individual, his individualistic intentions, his pride, vanity, ambition, etc.

V. Stern's report caused a strong reaction among Russian lawyers. St. Petersburg University professor O.B. became ardent supporters of V. Stern in Russia. Goldovsky and professor of Kazan University A.V. Zavadsky and A.I. Elistratov. They independently conducted a series of experiments similar to those of V. Stern and drew similar conclusions. O. Goldovsky himself said: “The psychological reasons for errors are very different, and the conclusion from comparing the picture reproduced by a witness with reality is very sad. The witness does not give an exact copy, but only a surrogate for it.”

Research on forensic psychology was carried out in other countries: in France by Claparède, in the USA by Myers, and also by Cattell, who in 1895 conducted an experiment with the memory of students and then proposed compiling an index of the degrees of accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

M.M. also worked on the psychology of testimony in Russia. Khomyakov, M.P. Bukhvalova, A.N. Bershtein, E.M. Kulischer and others. In 1905, the collection “Problems of Psychology” was published. Lies and testimony." Many of the articles in the collection were permeated by the idea of ​​the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. They shared a negative attitude towards witness testimony. Among them, first of all, one should name the largest Russian lawyer A.F. Horses. A.F. Koni sharply opposed the conclusions of V. Stern and O. Goldovsky.

Scientists of Kazan University M.A. Lazarev and V.I. Valitsky stated that Stern’s provisions will not be important for practice, that the most important evil in witness testimony is not involuntary errors, but the deliberate lies of witnesses, a more widespread phenomenon than is commonly believed: almost a quarter of witnesses deviate from the truth.

The famous Soviet psychologist B.M. Teplov correctly noted that even with complete subjective conscientiousness of the authors, the results of psychological experiments will be determined by the theory that guides them. In their psychological research, V. Stern and others showed a lack of understanding of the features of the mental reflection of objective reality. Thus, they considered the essence of involuntary memory as an accidental result of the passive imprinting by the brain of the factors acting on it.

The development of sciences, including the sciences of social phenomena, gives rise to the desire to understand the causes of crime and to provide a scientific basis for the activities of social institutions involved in its prevention. Thus, already in the 19th century, a new approach to solving this problem began to take shape, the essence of which was the desire to reveal the causes of criminal behavior and, on their basis, to draw up a program of practical activities to combat crimes and delinquency. In the mid-19th century, Cesare Lombroso was one of the first to try to scientifically explain the nature of criminal behavior from the perspective of anthropology. Lombroso's theory finds followers in our time. Echoes of it can be found in modern theories, such as Klinefelter’s theory of chromosomal abnormalities, in Freudian and neo-Freudian teachings about innate aggression and destructive drives, and in genetic engineering.

Lombrosianism is the concept of the innate predisposition of individuals to criminal offenses. It is named after Cesare Lombroso, who first formulated this concept.

The Italian psychiatrist Lombroso, having worked all his life as a prison doctor, created an impressive classification of the facial features of criminals. He expressed the idea that criminals not only differ in appearance from normal people, but also carry vestigial signs of primitive man. The external manifestations of these signs are the so-called stigmata of crime: irregular structure of the skull, asymmetry of the face, dulled sensitivity, inability to blush, a tendency to tattoo, etc. Anomalies in the psyche are expressed in vindictiveness, vanity, pride, weakness of reason, underdevelopment of moral feelings, peculiarities speech and even special writing reminiscent of ancient hieroglyphs.

Lombroso's teachings did not find further application. Alas, there are too many moral conclusions and too little truth in his conclusions. Of course, it would be very tempting to identify criminals, albeit potential ones, by the shape of their eyebrows or nose. However, the experience of criminologists shows that crimes are committed by people of very different appearances, sometimes even quite impressive ones. The famous hero of Conan Doyle stated: “The most disgusting-looking man I have ever met was a great philanthropist who donated endlessly to the needs of orphans, and the most charming woman I have ever seen turned out to be a poisoner of her children.” One way or another, Lombroso’s works are interesting to read, but they are impossible to use, at least for the purposes of forensic examination.

It is obvious that if we fully follow the logic of the anthropological theory of Charles Lombroso, then the fight against crime should be carried out through physical destruction or lifelong isolation of “innate” criminals. The biologization approach to explaining the nature of criminal behavior was subjected to serious, fair criticism already from bourgeois sociologists, contemporaries of Lombroso, when crime began to be studied as a social phenomenon.

History of forensic psychology in the 20th century.

The end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries is characterized by the sociologization of criminological knowledge, when the causes of crime as a social phenomenon began to be studied by sociologists J. Quetelet, E. Durkheim, P. Dupoty, M. Weber, L. Lévy-Bruhl and others, who, using the method of social statistics , overcame the anthropological approach in explaining the nature of criminal behavior, showing the dependence of deviant behavior on the social conditions of society. These works were certainly a progressive phenomenon of their time.

At the International Conference in France in 1972, researchers from different countries expressed a unanimous opinion that the relationship between genetic disorders and crime is not statistically confirmed.

Thus, the theory of chromosomal abnormalities, like the anthropological theory of crime, upon closer study did not find its confirmation and was subjected to serious justified criticism. Followers of the biologization approach, and in particular representatives of the Freudian and neo-Freudian schools, pay special attention to explaining the nature of such a property as aggressiveness, which allegedly serves as the root cause of violent crimes. Behavior, the purpose of which is to cause harm to some object or person, arises, according to Freudians and neo-Freudians, as a result of the fact that, for various reasons, certain unconscious innate drives do not receive realization, which gives rise to aggressive energy, the energy of destruction. As such unconscious innate drives, 3. Freud considered libido, A. Adler - the desire for power, for superiority over others, E. Fromm - the drive for destruction. It is obvious that in this case, aggressiveness must inevitably arise in any person with innate, strongly expressed unconscious drives, which are not always able to be realized in life and therefore find their way out in destructive, destructive behavior.

However, subsequent researchers of aggressiveness and its nature both abroad and in our country (A. Bandura, D. Bergkovets, A. Basho, E. Kvyatkovskaya-Tokhovich, S. N. Enikolopov, etc.) significantly changed the point of view on the nature of aggression and its expression.

An increasingly important role in the nature of aggression is given to social factors operating throughout life. Thus, A. Bandura believes that aggression is the result of a distorted socialization process, in particular the result of parental abuse of punishment and cruel treatment of children. A. Bergkovets points out that between the objective situation and a person’s aggressive behavior there are always two mediating reasons: readiness for aggression (anger) and interpretation, interpretation for oneself, of a given situation.

Individual psychosomatic and age-gender characteristics, as well as associated deviations (mental retardation, neuropsychic and somatic pathologies, crisis age periods of development, etc.) are considered as psychobiological prerequisites for antisocial behavior, which can complicate the social adaptation of an individual, not at all without being a fatal predetermining cause of criminal behavior.

R. Merton's theory of “social anomaly” is built on the hypothesis of the withering away, falling away of moral norms in delinquent behavior (sociology of crime); the theory of “neutralization” by D. Mats and T. Sykes, who believe that the criminal generally shares generally accepted moral standards, but justifies his criminal behavior.

The development of legal psychology in the first years of Soviet power was greatly facilitated by the great public interest in the issues of administration of justice, legality, the identity of the criminal, etc. The country began to search for new forms of crime prevention and re-education of offenders. Forensic psychology has taken an active role in solving these problems. In 1925, in our country, for the first time in the world, the State Institute for the Study of Crime and the Criminal was organized. During the first five years of its existence, this institute published a significant number of works on legal psychology. Special rooms for the study of criminals and crime were organized in Moscow, Leningrad, Saratov, Kyiv, Kharkov, Minsk, Baku and other cities.

At the same time, research was conducted on the psychology of testimony, psychological examination and some other problems.

Interesting research was carried out by psychologist A. R. Luria in the laboratory of experimental psychology, created in 1927 at the Moscow Provincial Prosecutor's Office. He studied the possibilities of using experimental psychology methods to investigate crimes and formulated the principles of operation of the device, which later received the name “lie detector” (lie detector). Significant contributions to the development of forensic psychology of that time were made by such famous specialists as V. M. Bekhterev and A. . F. Koni.

Already in the first years of Soviet power, lawyers and psychologists persistently searched for new forms of fighting crime. The new social system saw in the criminal, first of all, a person. This humanistic principle, which formed the basis of the Soviet legislative regulation of issues of evidence, naturally increased interest in the psychological characteristics of people involved in the orbit of criminal proceedings, and introduced psychology into the range of problems, the study of which was important for the successful investigation of crimes.

In 1922, Coney published a pamphlet, Memory and Attention, which outlined the problems of eyewitness testimony. A. R. Luria, in a number of his studies, subjected the essence of testimony to a special psychological analysis. The then famous forensic psychologist A.E. Brusilovsky paid a lot of attention to the issues of the psychology of testimony.

The achievements of experimental psychology began to be used during this period in judicial practice in Russia. In particular, V. M. Bekhterev and his students are actively involved in the problems of psychological diagnostics of criminals and witnesses. The first significant study in the field of forensic psychological examination was the book by A. E. Brusilovsky “Forensic psychological examination: its subject, methodology and subjects,” published in 1939 in Kharkov. It contains examples of the use of forensic psychological examination (FPE) in criminal proceedings.

Initially, during the period of the formation of experimental psychology, attempts to use it for the needs of legal practice were reduced mainly to the development of methods for determining the reliability of the testimony of participants in criminal proceedings. For example, in 1928, A.R. Luria, while studying mental processes, developed the so-called “conjugate motor technique” for the purpose of diagnosing affective traces. This technique is the prototype of a lie detector, which is now widely used in foreign legal practice.

In the works of that period, the personality of the offender was actively studied. This had its positive aspects, as it made it possible to accurately and correctly qualify the crimes committed, taking into account all objective and subjective aspects. But, on the other hand, while claiming to establish the reliability of the testimony of participants in the judicial investigative process, the expert took upon himself the task of determining how true or false this testimony is. For example, based on the free story of the subject and answers to questions, expert psychologists made conclusions about the presence or absence of so-called “symptoms of lying,” objectively determined by one or another personality type. It was assumed that subjects characterized by coldness, gloominess, and cynicism are ready for premeditated lies and distortion of facts. Therefore, the value of the testimony of such persons was considered dubious; the testimony of subjects with complexes of unfulfilled desires was considered unreliable.

It should be noted that at that time in psychological practice there were no effective scientifically based methods for a comprehensive study of personality, and therefore the expert task could not be solved. But this was not the main drawback of the PSE at that time. In answering the question about the unreliability of the expert's testimony, the expert psychologist exceeded the boundaries of his special knowledge and procedural powers, thereby invading the competence of the investigation and the court.

The level of practical psychology at that time still lagged behind legal practice. The psychologist not only revealed the reliability of the testimony, but also determined the guilt of the person who committed the crime. Such an unlawful overestimation of the competence of psychological examination caused a negative attitude towards expert psychological research, which existed until the 60s. The misconceptions of some supporters of forensic psychological examination have received well-deserved critical assessment from leading lawyers. However, amid criticism, no constructive proposals were made that would contribute to the correct and strictly regulated application of psychological knowledge in criminal proceedings. Most opponents of forensic psychological examination also underestimated the fact that psychological science has been widely introduced into practical activities. And only in the late 50s and early 60s. the question was raised about the need to restore the rights of legal psychology and forensic psychological examination. Thus, in the resolution of the plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR No. 6 of July 3, 1963, “On judicial practice in cases of juvenile crimes,” the advisability of conducting a forensic psychological examination was indicated in determining the ability of minors to fully understand the meaning of their actions and in determining the extent of their ability to lead by your actions. With this resolution, the active use of psychological knowledge in investigative and judicial practice begins. Research by domestic legal psychologists has made it possible to pose and solve psychological problems at a qualitatively new level in relation to the goals of the investigative and judicial process and the expert’s special knowledge.”

One of the private tasks of the judicial investigative process is to assess the identity of the accused, victim or witness. The task of an expert psychologist may include a general psychological characteristic of a person (the so-called psychological portrait). An expert, based on his professional knowledge, identifies such properties and qualities of a person that allow him to draw a conclusion about his psychological appearance. But expert activity, unlike the activity of the court and investigation, is not of a social-evaluative nature, but is based on scientifically substantiated principles of psychology.

In May 1971, the first All-Union Conference on Forensic Psychology was held in Moscow.

In June 1971 in Tbilisi, at the 4th All-Union Congress of Psychologists, forensic psychology was represented as a separate section.

In the fall of 1986, the All-Union Conference on Legal Psychology was held in Tartu (Estonia). At this conference, representatives of all republics and regions of the Soviet Union gathered and made reports and messages. These reports widely discussed the problems of the methodology and structure of forensic psychology, the tasks of its individual branches (criminal psychology, psychology of the victim, psychology of preliminary investigation, etc.), as well as the proposed structure of the university course of this discipline and the methodology of its teaching.

A significant contribution to the formation and development of legal psychology was made by V.V. Romanov and M.I. Enikeev: the first in the field of introducing legal psychology into the field of military justice, and the second in the field of organizing the teaching of this discipline in Moscow universities.

Currently, in our country, a lot of research is being conducted in the field of legal psychology in the following main areas:

General issues of legal psychology (subject, system, methods, history, connections with other sciences);

Legal awareness and legal psychology;

Professionograms of legal professions, psychological characteristics of legal activities;

To forensic psychology:

Criminal psychology. Psychology of the criminal and crime;

Psychology of preliminary investigation;

Psychology of Criminal Justice;

Forensic psychological examination;

Psychological characteristics of juvenile offenders;

Ethics and psychology of legal relations in the field of entrepreneurial activity;

Psychological patterns of the emergence and development of the “shadow economy”;

Psychology of organized crime, etc.

Methods of forensic psychology methodological foundations

Each science has its own subject and corresponding methods of scientific research. However, regardless of the field of research, certain requirements are imposed on scientific methods:

Firstly, the phenomenon under study must be studied in its development, in relation to the environment and other systems;

Secondly, scientific research must be objective. This means that the researcher must strive to ensure that his subjective assessments and opinions do not influence the observation process and the process of formulating final conclusions.

If we characterize in the most general terms the state of modern scientific knowledge and the methodological needs emerging on this basis, then, apparently, it is necessary, first of all, to state that it has become deeper and more complex, multi-level and multi-dimensional. It is these properties and at the same time the needs of the development of modern scientific knowledge that correspond to the main directions of the systems approach.

Forensic psychology is an independent scientific discipline, the focus of which is on the problems of reconciling man and law as elements of a single system. It can successfully develop and solve the complex of problems facing it only thanks to a systematic approach.

The basis of the systems approach is the study of the process of activity in connection with the structure of the individual and the system of legal norms. Only a systematic method makes it possible to analyze the interaction of these structures in sufficient depth and identify the basic psychological patterns of such interaction, and give a fairly complete description of the process, taking into account all its elements.

In this regard, the development of the leading general psychological theory in Russian science – the theory of activity (Vygotsky, Leontiev, Luria, Zaporozhets, etc.) acquires special value.

Activity is one of the main psychological categories. However, there is no generally accepted definition of it. S.L. Rubinstein notes the organic connection between human activity and consciousness. In his opinion, activity is “a process through which one or another person’s relationship to the world around him is realized - to other people, to the tasks that life sets for him.”

A person’s personality is characterized, first of all, by those basic, cardinal goals that constitute the meaning of a person’s life and are the driving forces of his activities and behavior. The main goals integrate the personality. Classification of methods

Forensic psychology widely uses various methods of jurisprudence and psychology to reveal the objective patterns it studies. These methods can be classified both by purpose and by research methods. According to the objectives of the study, forensic psychology methods are divided into the following three groups:

1. Methods of scientific research. With their help, the mental patterns of human relations regulated by the law are studied, and scientifically based recommendations are developed for practice - the fight against crime and its prevention.

2. Methods of psychological influence on the individual. They are used by officials fighting crime. The range of application of these methods is limited by the framework of criminal procedure legislation and ethics. They pursue the following goals: preventing criminal activity, solving a crime and identifying its causes, re-educating criminals, adapting them to the conditions of normal existence in a normal social environment.

3. Methods of forensic psychological examination. Their goal is the most complete and objective study, conducted by an expert psychologist according to the order of the investigative or judicial authorities. The range of methods used in this study is limited by the requirements of legislation regulating the examination.

Conclusion

For forensic, as well as for legal psychology, it is productive to use one of the principles of system analysis - the hierarchy of systems, the essence of which is that any system is considered as part of another, broader system, and its elements as independent systems. This principle allows, on the one hand, to focus attention on the multi-level organization of the reality being studied, and on the other hand, it provides the opportunity to focus research on a certain qualitatively unique phenomenon.

One of the methodological principles of both legal and forensic psychology is the personal approach. Forensic psychology always has the individual as its object of study, since it is to this person that the system of legal norms is addressed. This allows you to build a personality structure and highlight those elements of it that are significant in criminogenic situations, in various aspects of law enforcement, when developing a strategy for the resocialization of offenders, etc. One of the most important tasks of forensic psychology is the identification of internal personal prerequisites that, in interaction with certain external factors can create a criminogenic situation for a given individual, that is, the identification of criminogenic personal qualities and prerequisites.

Bibliography

1. Baranov P.P., V.I. Kurbatov Legal psychology. Rostov-on-Don, “Phoenix”, 2007.

2. Bondarenko T. A. Legal psychology for investigators. M., 2007.

3. Volkov V.N., S.I. Yanaev Legal psychology. M., 2005.

4. Vasiliev V.L. “Legal Psychology”: Textbook - St. Petersburg, 2006.

5. Enikeev M.I. Legal psychology. M., 2006.

6. Psychological techniques in the work of a lawyer. Stolyarenko O.M. M., 2006.

7. Shikhantsov G.G. Legal psychology. M., 2006.

Justice is administered only by the court through consideration and resolution of civil and criminal cases in court sessions. When considering criminal cases, the court applies penalties established by law to guilty persons or acquits innocent persons.

Judicial proceedings are carried out in accordance with the procedure established by law and resolve cases on the basis of the law. General and mandatory rules for conducting legal proceedings are established by procedural law. TO general rules of trial include: immediacy, orality and continuity of the trial, the leadership role of the presiding judge in the court, equality of rights of participants in the trial, etc.

The trial is organized on the principle of adversarial law, in which all participants in the trial can realize their equal opportunities.

The court is not connected with the evidence collected during the preliminary investigation; it takes measures to collect new evidence, identifies and fills incompleteness of the preliminary investigation or inquiry. He is not connected with the conclusions of the indictment and has the right to change the charge, terminate the criminal case or pronounce an acquittal.

The defendant and his defense attorney cannot be charged with proving the defendant’s innocence. The court is not bound by the prosecutor's opinion on the case and makes a decision according to its inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of all the circumstances of the case in their totality, guided by the law and its legal consciousness.

The trial consists of five parts: preparatory part, judicial investigation, judicial debate, the last word of the defendant, sentencing.

Judicial activity is a type of socio-psychological activity; it consists of identification, social-communicative and social-constructive (educational) components and has its own structure.

Forensic research is based on necessary and reliable information - forensic evidence in the case. The constructive result of judicial activity - the issuance of a lawful and reasonable verdict - is determined by the accumulation, analysis and assessment of the necessary legally significant information. In its cognitive activity, the court has an indicative model of the legally significant event under investigation - materials and the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. The presence of this preliminary conclusion has a significant suggestive (suggestive) force. And the court will have to show greater non-conformity (independence) for an objective, complete, comprehensive and fair consideration of the case.

The preliminary investigation only facilitates the cognitive-search activity of the court, but does not predetermine its evaluative activity. However, by systematizing the initial information in a certain way, the preliminary investigation can have a hidden impact on the evaluation activities of the court. But the court must protect itself from this influence. The conclusion of the preliminary investigation is for the court only an information-probabilistic model of the event under investigation. The task of the court is to form a reliable model of this event by critically analyzing all the elements of the probabilistic model.

The main part of the evidentiary information is perceived by the court from oral communications (testimony of the defendant, witnesses, experts, etc.). This implies:

• the judge’s development of speech analysis - his ability to highlight the essential in a speech message overloaded with details, to separate facts from emotional and evaluative attitudes towards them;
• resistance to various emotional and speech methods of influence, to pathetic appeals and sentimental assessments;
• the ability to recognize situational and personal camouflage, self-disguise and self-demonstration of persons involved in the case;
• taking into account all kinds of stereotypes of social perception - behind the spoken phrases, the court must discern the true intentions and interests of people, identify their true relationships and moral positions.

The complex psychoanalytic activity of a judge requires not only legal, but also psychodiagnostic training, knowledge of the general socio-psychological characteristics of people's behavior in a social group, the patterns of their cognitive and reconstructive activity.

The activities of the court are carried out in difficult, often mentally stressful conditions. This requires the necessary orientation in the problem of conflict social interaction, knowledge of relaxation techniques - calming the emotionally excited behavior of individuals. The most important mental qualities of a judge are emotional stability, tolerance, and the ability to act constructively in emotionally stressful conditions.

The trial reproduces the dramatic and tragic events of reality. Here the passions, hatreds, malice and aggressiveness of the various stakeholders are re-enacted. To regulate these emotional manifestations, endurance, wisdom in life, calmness, tolerance are required, as well as the necessary exactingness of the judge, as a person endowed with authority.

Significant and intragroup communicative activity of the judge- his interaction with colleagues. The presiding judge of the court is the formal leader. However, his powers should not violate the equality of all members of the panel of judges. His leadership style should be democratic. The exchange of views should be constructive and not deviate from the essence of the matter. The authority of the presiding officer should not suppress the independent opinions of other members of the court. The personal conviction of each judge is guaranteed by law.

All court activities are aimed at verifying evidence (establishing its authenticity) and making a legal, informed decision.

Psychological characteristics of the stages of trial.

1. Study of preliminary investigation materials and planning of judicial activities.

At this stage, the judge, getting acquainted with the materials of the preliminary investigation and its conclusion (mainly with written materials and some physical evidence), carries out reconstructive activities on the basis of a reconstructive imagination. Here it is important not to succumb to the “primacy effect” and to demonstrate independent cognitive activity.

Studying the case materials is a special stage in the activities of other participants in the criminal process, and above all the prosecutor and lawyer. Already here their procedural position and opposing interaction are formed. Only deep knowledge of the case allows them to outline the strategy and tactics of their activities, formulate a system of strategic issues at the stage of judicial investigation and deliver a bright, convincing, reasoned speech in judicial debates.

When studying the materials of a criminal case each side finds out:

• what must be verified in court;
• whether the conclusions of the indictment correspond to the materials of this criminal case;
• whether the investigator has taken into account the entire body of evidence in the case, whether there is a need to fill the gaps in the preliminary investigation in court;
• on which aspects of the case the prosecution or defense strategy should be built, what evidence can receive a new interpretation, which can affect the court’s decision.

The incense stage is produced systematization evidence and sources for obtaining it, critical analysis their reliability, all possible counter-versions are put forward. The necessary extracts and records are kept, a working summary of the case is drawn up - the charges, the testimony of the defendants are written out, material evidence and documents are systematized, possible gaps in the system of evidence are identified, possible procedural violations committed during the preliminary investigation.

The first acquaintance with the case materials is particularly acute, while indicative research activities are intensified. There is still no gradation into what is important and what is secondary. Every detail here must be carefully examined and included in all possible relationships. At the same time, the entire situation of the incident under study is updated, everything that allows you to see the event from a different point of view is taken into account. The interrogation protocol of the accused is carefully studied to determine his attitude towards the charges brought against him.

Key Question familiarization with the materials of the preliminary investigation - where could the mistake have been made? “It can be proven that a left-hander shot himself with his right hand, but it cannot be proven that he shot himself if he had three wounds and each should have caused instant death.” The study of judicial errors indicates that many crimes are committed completely differently from how they were presented at the trial and preliminary investigation. And often the explanation of an event lies precisely in those facts that at first glance seem random and secondary. Sometimes the difficulty of explaining an event is explained by the actual simplicity of its occurrence.

All facts of the event under investigation must be understood in a system of cause-and-effect relationships, and not a single fact should be left without explanation. “Put yourself in the position of the defendant and look around through his eyes before the crime, at the time of the crime, after it; do the same in relation to each of the accomplices, to the victims, to witnesses whose role is not entirely clear to you. Understand the likely actions, meetings and negotiations of the criminal with the victim or accomplices of the crime with each other at different times; Pay attention to whether their mutual relationship has changed after the crime. ...Change the expected conditions of place and time. This may reveal to you what the interested people managed to hide from the investigator.”

Familiarization with the materials of the preliminary investigation should lead to a clear and complete understanding of the case. All ambiguities indicate the direction of forensic investigation. The judge must pay attention not only to what happened, but also to what did not happen. (Why didn’t the dog bark when a stranger robbed a village store? Why didn’t the victim wake up when there was a lot of noise around?) Evidence can be what happened and what didn’t happen.

At this stage, the analytical and critical aspects of the judge’s mental activity are activated. The judge tries to figuratively imagine the occurrence and development of the event under study, while carrying out logical modeling, conducting, putting forward counterversions. All actions of the investigator are subject to critical analysis, their necessity and procedural validity are clarified.

When putting forward a judicial version, the judge is based on the most reliable, verified facts, and strives to avoid a possible miscarriage of justice. Having determined the model of the event, the relationship of its parts and stages, the judge proceeds to planning its consideration at the trial. The case materials are divided into large blocks, sequential groups of interrelated facts (so-called event graphs are defined).

The planned sequence of consideration of events in a court session should ensure the adequacy of their perception by the participants in the court session, a reflection of the actual dynamics of the event under consideration. At the same time, the judge identifies weak points in fact and plans to carry out the necessary judicial and investigative actions. Particular attention is paid sources of key facts and their internal consistency. The possibility of their random coincidence is analyzed. The circle of persons to be summoned to the court hearing is determined, and all necessary new documents are requested.

Issues related to being brought to trial are resolved collegiately at a court order session.

2. Stage of judicial investigation

At this stage, a direct perception of all sources of evidence occurs, a study of their reliability is carried out, and their relevance and significance are analyzed. All interested parties to the process take part in the judicial investigation: judges, prosecutor, defendant and his lawyer. The different starting positions of the parties give the trial a special urgency and tension.

Judicial investigation- part of the trial in which the court, with the participation of the defendant, defense attorney, victim and prosecutor, directly examines the evidence collected at the preliminary investigation stage and presented to the court by the participants in the trial or collected by the court itself.

The judicial investigation begins with the announcement of the indictment (or a statement from the victim, if no preliminary investigation or inquiry was conducted). During the judicial investigation, the presiding judge, judges, defense counsel, and prosecutor interrogate defendants, witnesses, hear expert opinions, examine physical evidence, read out protocols and other documents. The procedure for examining certain types of evidence (interrogation of the defendant, witnesses, examination of physical evidence) is established by law. The order of examination of various groups of evidence is determined by the court.

For the formation of the internal conviction of judges, the judicial investigation is of decisive importance. Participants in the debate may only refer to the materials of the judicial investigation. The court also bases the verdict only on the evidence that was considered at the trial.

In a judicial investigation, all participants in the trial have equal rights to present evidence and participate in their research and in filing petitions. But each interested party here seeks to highlight those aspects of the circumstances that correspond to its interests.

Conflicting interests of the parties can give rise to tense situations and conflict confrontation. The task of the judge is to give the interaction of the parties a constructive and cognitive character, to provide them with procedurally guaranteed rights and opportunities, ensure the adversarial nature of legal proceedings.

The regulation of interpersonal relations in the process of judicial consideration of a criminal case requires from the judge not only legal professionalism, but also psychological preparedness and a general culture of communication. The judge must respond to all situations that are unacceptable in court in a timely, tactful, but firm manner (avoiding moralizing remarks, lectures and lectures). The judge is obliged to suppress all manifestations of rudeness and tactlessness in interpersonal relationships, protect the process from unnecessary emotional outbursts and introduce it into a rational channel. At the same time, manifestations of arrogance, rudeness, and comments that humiliate the personal dignity of the participants in the process are excluded from his part. All categorical demands of a judge must be procedurally justified.

Cognitive (cognitive) activity of a judge During a judicial investigation, it is distinguished by its versatility, overload of RAM, anticipation of various options for the possible development of the judicial investigation, prompt analysis of incoming information and legal conceptualization. All personal sources of information are subject to critical analysis, taking into account the individual typological characteristics of the individuals concerned.

Complex, confusing situations are subject to schematization (sometimes graphical display). Attention is drawn to the strategy and tactics of behavior of the parties, their attitudinal positions, and conscientiousness in reporting the facts. Tendentious, pre-prepared tactics of the parties can be neutralized by investigative actions carried out for the first time in a judicial investigation.

The judicial investigation must, of course, comply with all procedural and judicial-ritual requirements. However, it should be remembered that an overly strict court environment can cause excessive mental tension and inhibition of the mental activity of its individual participants, reducing their intellectual and mnemonic capabilities. The initial appeal to them should be distinguished by some relaxation (calming) effect - courtesy, respect and, in any case, emphasized neutrality. It is necessary to remove in every possible way the so-called social inhibition - the oppressive, suppressive influence of the social community on the behavior of an individual. Do not allow remarks or shouts from the courtroom.

FAQ should not be tactless and intrusive. For the purpose of situational adaptation of persons giving testimony, the initial questions should be as simple as possible, intelligible, but not allowing monosyllabic answers (yes - no). These questions should intensify the speech activity of those involved in the case. Inattention, lengthy negotiations between judges, disrespectful remarks, and manifestations of impatience are unacceptable here. The judge's questions should not have a touch of irony or mockery. By causing a frivolous reaction from those present, they can confuse the person giving evidence and reduce the overall business spirit of the court session. It should be borne in mind that any mass reaction may have the nature of mental infection. All questions to interrogated persons must be strictly controlled by the court. Subject to deviation not only leading, but also provoking, confusing, demagogic questions.

In a judicial investigation, sometimes an abundance of idle, unpurposeful, psychologically ill-thought-out questions are asked (to which the questioner easily receives unfavorable answers). Insignificant discrepancies between testimony in court and during the preliminary investigation are often emphasized. Often, parties ask questions that strengthen the other party's position. Only very experienced lawyers and prosecutors avoid questions that are unfavorable to defending their case, when the chances of a favorable answer are slim. “Childish” questions make an unfavorable impression.

...The autopsy report of a strangled woman was announced: “In the uterine cavity there is a full-term fetus.” Question from the prosecutor to the forensic expert: “Please tell me, was the deceased pregnant?!”
Or: “When you approached Ivanov, was he still alive?”
No, he was already dead.
Completely dead?!..

Particular attention should be paid to the judicial review of cases with the participation of victims. The accused and the victim in the trial form a single system. Without identifying the characterological characteristics of the victim, it is impossible to reveal the essence of the case. His behavior can be imprudent, risky, frivolous, provocative. The victimological characteristics of the victim are essential for determining the degree of responsibility of the accused. The behavior of the victim can be considered lawful and unlawful, moral and immoral.

The court identifies legally significant signs of the victim’s behavior, which include:

• signs characterizing the personality of the victim;
• the severity of the injuries found on the victim;
• helpless, life-threatening and painful condition of the survivor;
• social characteristics of the victim’s personality (financial situation, social status, etc.);
• legality-illegality of the victim’s behavior, “consent of the victim”;
• the relationship of the victim with the accused (relations of kinship, official, financial and other dependence).

Victimological (provoking) behavior of the victim is socially dangerous. The degree to which the victim contributed to the actions of the accused is taken into account by the court and, therefore, should also be in the attention of the defense attorney. The behavior of the victim, as is known, influences the qualification of the crime committed by the defendant. Thus, the qualification of murder for hooligan motives will be rejected if the murder was committed in an quarrel, fight, or on the basis of personal hostility.

Diagnostics is essential in forensic investigations false testimony: the implementation of the basic principle of legal proceedings—its objectivity—depends on this. Lie- this is a distortion of facts through their arbitrary reconstruction in time and space, fabrication of non-existent facts, exclusion of individual elements of an event, and addition of fictitious circumstances. There are two types of lies: passive - hiding information, silence (complete or partial) and active - reporting deliberately false information. The reconstruction of past events may be inadequate, distorted due to memory defects (conscientious delusion). But the testimony of individual participants in legal proceedings may also be knowingly, that is, deliberately, false.

Conscientious misconceptions and mistakes can be caused by special conditions of perception of events, age and individual characteristics of the individual, his mental and physical states. Deliberately false testimony and perjury are given with the aim of misleading the court, extracting benefits, avoiding judicial sanctions, under the influence of threats and promises.

In the formation of a false testimony, a number of stages can be distinguished:

• awareness of the purpose and meaning of a possible false message;
• forming a mental model of a false message, including individual plausible elements in it;
• retention of the model of perjury in memory;
• verbalization of the model of perjury in legal proceedings.

Falsity of testimony is diagnosed according to a number of signs:

• the poverty of the emotional background of the testimony, due to the schematic nature and memorization of their verbal structure;
• lexical features of testimony that do not correspond to the personal characteristics of the person being interrogated;
• slips in statements indicating the person’s awareness of the circumstances he is hiding;
• stereotypical coincidence of testimonies of several persons;
• failure to provide a detailed description of the event;
• inconsistency of messages from various sources of information;
• increased self-rehabilitation;
• evasiveness of answers to direct questions;
• ignorance of the circumstances that should have entered the field of involuntary perception and memorization.

The overcoming of perjury is facilitated by its judicial punishment and the judge’s armament with techniques for exposing it.

Perjury is overcome its prevention, timely recognition (diagnosis), revealing actions and changing the position of a false witness, developing in him an attitude to give truthful testimony. The exposure of false evidence is facilitated by obtaining information from various sources, repeated interrogations using a system of clarifying, detailing, comparative and control questions.

The judicial investigation allows the use of methods of legitimate mental influence (influence that does not limit freedom of expression) on persons who deliberately oppose the achievement of the truth. This can be a sudden posing of emotionally affecting questions, and the presentation of new, unexpected evidence, conclusions, organization of cross-examination, confrontation, etc.

Mnemonic assistance is also provided to those being interrogated: a reminder of the starting events, their sequence, reliance on emotionally charged circumstances, linking to events that are vital for a given individual, taking into account the phenomenon of reminiscence, proactive and retroactive inhibition, encouragement to reproduce the necessary material by establishing associative connections.

The court has the right to carry out all investigative actions provided for by law. However, carrying out such investigative actions as checking testimony on the spot, investigative, is limited by the conditions of the court hearing.

3. Psychology of judicial debate

An independent part (stage) of the trial is judicial debate, in which each person participating in the case expresses his point of view on the circumstances of the case and the issues to be resolved on the basis of evidence verified during the judicial investigation. In their speeches, interested parties relate, first of all, to the proof or lack of proof (in whole or in part) of the charges brought against the accused, the qualifications of the committed act, if it is confirmed by the collected evidence, and the penalty to be imposed on the defendant. Questions about the causes of the crime are also touched upon, and a description of the personality of the defendant is given.

The state and public prosecutors, the defense attorney and the defendant also participate in the judicial debate, if the defense attorney does not participate in the court hearing. In cases of private prosecution, in cases of minor bodily injury, battery, slander without aggravating circumstances, insult, the victim and his representative also participate in the judicial debate.

The sequence of speeches by prosecutors and defense counsel is established by the court. The duration of court hearings is not limited. However, the presiding judge has the right to stop participants in judicial debates if they relate to circumstances that are not relevant to the case. After making a speech, the person may speak one more time. The right of the last remark belongs to the defense lawyer and the defendant.

Participants in judicial debates analyze in their speeches their version of the event under consideration, strive to exert a favorable influence on the judges, based on their procedural position, and refute the model of the event or its elements defended by other participants in judicial debates. They present their proposals regarding the possible punishment or acquittal of the defendant.

Judicial speech

The art of judicial speech is the art of persuasion through the purposeful systematization of facts and their convincing assessment. An important role is played by the skill of judicial speech, associated with the level of logical analysis and figurative presentation. A significant role in the persuasiveness of judicial speech is played by a psychological analysis of the personality of the defendant and the victim, the characteristics of their stable behavioral characteristics, and the extraordinary circumstances under which the offense occurred.

However, judicial speech is not an isolated act - it must be closely linked to the results of the judicial investigation. Only the evidence obtained during the judicial investigation can be used as the basis for judicial speech, in the formation of the final procedural position of a participant in judicial debate.

When pronouncing psychological characteristics, it is necessary to treat the individual with extreme care and refrain from preconceived opinions and crude, categorical cliches. The judicial audience, as a rule, reacts very sensitively to any “overlaps” in a person’s characterization. It must be based on the actual data of the criminal case. Only a very professional, respectable person has the right to publicly judge another person.

Unfair personal assessments hurt a person’s soul, and these wounds do not heal for a long time. The circumstances of the case themselves objectively characterize all participants in the legal drama. You just have to remember that sometimes subtle behavioral facts are an expression of deep personal qualities. (As the ancient philosophers said, it is best to judge a person by the little details of his behavior.)

What sounds most convincing is not one’s own psychological assessments given by the prosecutor or defense attorney, but independent expert assessments—reviews of the defendant and the victim from people who knew them well. And when the defense lawyer asks the witnesses: “What was the behavior of the deceased?” - and receives the answer: “The woman was holy - hardworking and merciful!”, then we can say that the defender asked his main strategic question.

One of the sources of objective psychological characteristics of a person is the products of his creativity, including various written documents. A person’s style, as Hans Gross noted, is his personal style: it reflects the education and mental development of the individual, the basic properties of his character.

A person’s misdeeds may be random and atypical for him. And this is very important for the overall personal assessment of the defendant.

Personal characteristics in court must be considered fully, comprehensively and psychologically qualified. A person cannot be characterized in one way. Even in a hardened criminal there are remnants of humanity that can serve as the basis for his resocialization.

In addition to personal characteristics, in court there is often a need for a psychological analysis of various behavioral situations, interpersonal relationships, and everything that is called everyday psychology. And here we are not talking about the secrets of psychoanalysis. Worldly wisdom is often enough to understand the mechanism of human interaction. It is only important to give significance to how people behave in various life situations.

“In most criminal cases there are no psychological subtleties. What do we have to talk about? About love, jealousy and hatred, about hypocrisy and truthfulness, about cruelty and kindness, about the strength of a person’s passions and the weakness of his will. What of all this may be alien to us, what we do not know from our own observations of ourselves and those around us? Doesn’t each of us distinguish between purity of heart and prudent virtues, frivolity from moral laxity, an accidental mistake from vicious habits? Who doesn’t know how an unfaithful wife lies, how a disgraced husband suffers, how wealth despises poverty, how greedily the eyes of self-interest seek other people’s money? Who doesn’t see how close ignorance is to crime, how often intelligence and knowledge serve it?” .

The moral and psychological assessment of the criminal’s behavior is the final ending of the main part of the judicial speech. Here it is necessary to answer the question: did the defendant himself go towards his crime or did it, like fate, inexorably overtake him in the narrow gorge of life’s adversities? Did the person consciously strive to commit evil or did it overtake him?

The art of judicial speech in such a message, as a result of which the judges themselves added what was unsaid, caused their positional solidarity. But this does not mean that judicial eloquence is more important than legal consideration of the case.

The position of any judicial speaker must be truthful. And on the side of truth, as Aristotle noted, there is always more logical evidence and moral arguments. But evidence is not flowers on the lawn that you just have to pick. Often the most compelling evidence is hidden in the small details of a case, in the everyday hollows of interpersonal relationships, and they cannot be “collected” - they must be mined. A judicial speaker must have the ability to interpret the essence of seemingly inconspicuous phenomena. The conclusion from the essence of the fact is the most convincing part of the speech of a judicial speaker.

The speech of a judicial speaker is always his participation in a judicial dispute, the use of various tactical means of confrontation. The bitter truth is that truth is the result of judgment. The truth, of course, is established through evidence. But the outcome of a trial largely depends on the art of negotiation.

It is assumed that the achievement of truth in court is facilitated by the principle of adversarialism - the equality of the parties in the implementation of their procedural capabilities. However, true equality cannot be achieved in the inequality of their polemical opportunities. The presence of identical swords does not detract from the superiority of the more skilled side. And in court, various fighting techniques are very widely used; all that matters is that they be honest. The court and the judicial audience are able to accurately distinguish what is morally and procedurally permissible from what is unacceptable. In court, it is not the more eloquent one who should win, but the one more right-wing. But for the victory of rightness, a certain skill of its apologists is necessary.

The main requirement for the quality of speech of a judicial speaker is to be clearly evidentiary. This is achieved by complying with certain polemical rules:

These are the Ten Commandments of the Proving Judicial Orator. There are corresponding commandments and for a rebuttal speaker:

• look for unlawful generalizations made by your opponent;
• do not strain yourself too much when answering your opponent, do it easily and casually, as something well understood by all listeners;
• to object to your opponent, use his own arguments;
• contrast words with facts;
• deny what cannot be proven;
• do not leave any weighty argument of the enemy unanswered;
• do not object to reasonable evidence; find an explanation for them that would reconcile them with your position;
• do not refute something the improbability of which is obvious to everyone - do not fight with windmills;
• carefully examine the facts recognized by the enemy, use them for your own purposes;
• if irrefutable evidence is ignored by your opponent, emphasize its irrefutableness, but never stoop to personal attacks.

A large scope for attacking the opponent’s positions is provided by alogisms and sophisms allowed by many judicial speakers.

Without invading the realm of logic here, I invite the reader to destroy with the following sophistry, often found in the speeches of prosecutors for so-called sex crimes: “If the defendant is acquitted, we will be in constant fear for our wives and daughters.”

In judicial speech, it is important not only what is said, but also how it is said. Exists a number of techniques for strengthening expressed thoughts. Some of them are artificial. Some prosecutors, instead of actually justifying the accusation, talk long and colorfully (as they believe) about the harm of crimes, about their inadmissibility in a given society, about the immorality of murder and rape.

The court needs to prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and he is always sufficiently aware of the harmfulness of crime. The method of artificially enhancing the phenomenon under discussion is not adequate. However, there are also acceptable ways to focus attention on the issue under discussion. Such a technique is, in particular, the technique of repetition - not a monotonous reproduction of the same thing, but a repeated development of thought, consideration of the same subject from different sides, putting thoughts into different speech patterns.

In one of the criminal cases, a mountaineering instructor was accused of negligence. His lawyer, revealing the arbitrariness of the actions of the deceased climber, again exaggerated this feature of his behavior: “... He went forward, despite the lack of appropriate preparation at the previous instruction; went forward despite the direct prohibition of movement; went forward despite the fact that insurance for moving climbers had not yet been provided.”

If the main thesis of a judicial speaker is extremely obvious, it becomes invisible like daylight. It would be appropriate here to illuminate the object of study from different angles, various metaphors and antitheses (“he is in gold, she is in poverty”), and encouraging the audience to create figurative ideas.

Giving an impetus to the independent development of thoughts of listeners is one of the main techniques of oratory. “An experienced speaker can always hide his main idea from his listeners and lead them to it without speaking out to the end. When the thought has already formed in them, when the triumph of completed creativity has taken place, and with the birth of the thought a passion for their brainchild was born, then they are no longer critics, full of mistrust, but like-minded people of the speaker, delighted with their own insight.”

A clear thought is no less contagious than a feeling. An intelligent and sensitive speaker excites the minds and feelings of others. An unspoken thought, a hint thought is always more attractive than a directly expressed thought- it excites the listener’s imagination, induces his own reasoning. Not everything can be said in court, but everything can be conveyed through the polysemy of verbal expressions. But the morality of the judicial speaker must be on guard of permissible ambiguities. Any vulgar hints, manifestations of vulgarity and obscenity are incompatible with the public communication activities of a judicial speaker.

The morality of a judge is the basis of legal proceedings. And if defense or accusation turns into a weapon against the truth, this is a sign of degradation. Judicial confrontation differs from war in its legality and permissibility of the means of confrontation used. These means must necessarily be fair, just and legal. The parties may not be frank, but they must be truthful. In the very first conversation with the client, the lawyer should strongly recommend that he be truthful. A lie never leads to good.

A judicial official must invariably be true to himself, to his human dignity. Only then will he be right in front of other people. The oath of the former jurors was also created on a moral basis: “I promise and swear that in every case in which I am elected as a juror, I will apply all the power of my understanding and cast a decisive vote according to the real truth and conviction of my conscience.” The jury judges more by impressions than by logical arguments, according to the dictates of the soul and conscience. And it is the duty of the judicial speaker to create in them objectively correct ideas and not to distort the truth with the techniques of eloquence.

With an eye in conclusion, what lawyers and forensic psychologists believe is an ideal defensive speech, delivered two and a half millennia ago in his defense by the great Socrates. “In the speeches of my accusers, Athenians, there is not a word of truth; I won’t tell you anything but the truth. Their speeches sparkle with grace and wit; I will speak simply, without choosing fancy words. At my age, it is indecent to come to you with a speech prepared in advance, and I am not used to speaking in court. Therefore, I earnestly ask you not to pay attention to my expressions, but to judge carefully whether what I say is fair or not. This is the duty of the judge, and my duty is to tell the truth... (Next, Socrates invites his accusers to indicate, according to their accusation, at least one person he seduced, to indicate at least one witness in whose presence he denied the existence of gods. There were no such people at the trial.) ... What I have said, Athenians, is enough to prove to us that I am not guilty of the crimes of which I am accused... Be sure that by condemning me to death, you will do more harm to yourself than to me. I am defending myself here not for my own sake, but for your sake: I am afraid that you will offend God by not appreciating the gift he has given you in my person. Judge for yourself: I never thought about myself; I dedicated my whole life to you; like a father or an older brother, I taught you good... Evaluate my selflessness: my most ardent accusers did not dare to reproach me for taking money from anyone for my teaching. I have a reliable witness to this: my poverty... I have relatives, I have three sons, but I did not bring them here. Not out of pride and arrogance, the Athenians, on the contrary, out of respect for themselves and for you. I consider it unworthy to resort to such methods...

...I think there is no point in asking the judge for an acquittal. We must convince him by proving our innocence. The judge judges in the name of justice and should not sacrifice it to please the accused; he took an oath to serve the law, not people... Now I leave it to you and God to give me the verdict that is best for you and for me.”

No comments here. Let the reader himself find in this speech excellent illustrations of the previously cited requirements for judicial speech. (It also remains to be regretted that even such a speech, such proof of innocence did not save the great philosopher from the death penalty for dissent.)

Let us also recall the words of P. Sergeich: “To prove in court does not mean to convince. Iron logic is only strong as long as you like it. Emotions and feelings in court are no less powerful rulers than reason and truth. Many unjust decisions were made under the yoke of pity or revenge. Feelings, of course, can have a rational basis, but they can also fly in like tumbleweeds through a subconscious channel of infection. The emotional electrification of the judicial audience is reflected in the mental state of the judges. And what is justice? Is this a rational category, or is it an emotional-evaluative category? (We are talking about a sense of justice, not a mental capacity for justice.) What do judges experience during heated judicial debates, when the rope of truth and justice is alternately pulled from side to side?”

We consider the parties' appeal to the judges' feelings as a manifestation of mental pressure. Only evidence should be disclosed to the court, and the court should pay attention only to the reliable information available. This, of course, does not mean that the pathos of citizenship, morally justified indignation, and angry censure of baseness and meanness are unacceptable in judicial debates. But the core of these feelings must be proven and relevant facts.

“Naked” feelings must be suppressed by the court; only those emotions and feelings that are subordinated to the triumph of truth are appropriate here. Emotions adapted to the unilateral triumph of the interests of any party are unacceptable. Only emotionally stable people can serve the law faithfully. But it is also true that those who cannot empathize with them cannot serve people.

Modern scientific psychology denies the isolation of consciousness from the subconscious and unconscious spheres of the human psyche. All acts of thinking are driven by emotional energy. However, at the “judicial outcome” there should only be a “dry residue” of rational, logical conclusion correlated with the law. The strongest evidence must complete the process of evidence analysis and evaluation. But each evidence must be carefully examined in terms of its relevance and admissibility. It is necessary to compare the evidence and draw clear conclusions.

Conclusion of the speech should be brief and expressive, contain a final definition of the position of the judicial speaker and an appeal to the court with a clearly expressed request. However, it must be psychological - contain elements of trust and appeal to the court.

“Concluding the accusation, I cannot help but repeat that a case like the present one will require a lot of effort of the mind and conscience to resolve it. But I am sure that you will not retreat before the difficulties of the task, just as the accusatory power did not retreat before it, although, perhaps, you will resolve it differently. I find that the defendant Emelyanov committed a terrible deed, I find that, having passed a cruel and unjust sentence on his poor and innocent wife, he carried it out with all severity. If you, gentlemen of the jury, leave the room with the same conviction as I do, if my arguments confirm this conviction in you, then I think that in no more than a few hours the defendant will hear from your lips a sentence, of course, less severe, but “, without a doubt, more just than the one he himself pronounced over his wife.”

Needless to say, the speech of a judicial speaker must be impeccable from the point of view of speech culture. All less commonly used terms should receive the necessary clarification, and legal terminology should be kept to a minimum. It is unacceptable to mix paronyms (words with the same root, similar in sound, but different in meaning - “dressed - put on”, etc.).

"Flowers of Eloquence" is not required for everyone. Whoever has the gift of verbal depiction has the right to use his talent. Artificial attempts at speech floridity are doomed to failure. The main criterion for a good style is clarity.

Psychology of the prosecutor's activities in court. Prosecutor's speech

The prosecutor's accusatory activities must be combined with all his other duties; he is obliged to respond to any violation of the law.

If the investigation data do not support the charges brought against the defendant, the prosecutor is obliged to refuse to support the charges. The prosecutor is responsible for ensuring individual rights and protecting the innocent from liability. The prosecutor is not above the court - he is called upon to facilitate its successful activities. However, in judicial practice, cases of arrogant and tactless behavior of individual prosecutors are not uncommon.

Indictment prosecutor's speech is usually perceived against the background of significant mental stress, in conditions of intense judicial competition. The prosecutor's speech is designed to meet certain social expectations. His speech has significant general warning value. However, the aggressiveness of the prosecutor's indictment has nothing in common with the nervousness, loudness, phrase-mongering and posture of the boss. The only support for his speech is a system of irrefutable evidence. And the decoration of his speech is not general words, but specific facts and their systematization.

The prosecutor's speech consists of the following parts:

• Introductory part.
• Statement of the factual circumstances of the act, the plot of the case.
• Analysis and evaluation of evidence collected in the case.
• Justification for the classification of the crime.
• Characteristics of the personality of the defendant and the victim.
• Proposals for punishment.
• Issues of compensation for damage caused by crime.
• Analysis of the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of the crime. Suggestions for their elimination.
• Conclusion.

A big mistake many prosecutors make is retelling the case materials instead of a qualified analysis of the evidence.

The prosecutor must:

• remain a highly qualified lawyer, and not turn into a mediocre storyteller;
• convincingly “solder” disparate facts into a single block of evidence;
• prove the good quality of this evidence, its reliability and procedural admissibility;
• If the defendant denies his guilt, then the prosecutor’s duty is to examine in detail the arguments presented by the defendant, compare them with other irrefutable evidence, and show their inconsistency. All expert opinions are subject to analysis.

A particularly thorough investigation should be carried out in cases where the accusation is based on circumstantial evidence. The relationship of these evidences is hidden, mediated by intermediate circumstances. The prosecutor is called upon to make these connections obvious.

When qualifying a crime, the prosecutor should disclose the content of the relevant article of the criminal code, justify the correctness of its application, and disclose the objective and subjective aspects of the relevant crime.

When revealing the goals and motives of a crime, the prosecutor must also show psychological erudition. He must prove himself a master of psychological analysis when analyzing the personal characteristics of the defendant and the victim.

When assigning punishment, the personal characteristics of the defendant must be taken into account - this is the requirement of the law. Data about the personality of the defendant must have a typological meaning, revealing the individual’s lifestyle, the general style of his behavior, value orientation, and the hierarchical structure of his motivational sphere. When characterizing the personality of the defendant, the personality of the prosecutor himself is revealed, his attitude towards people, understanding of their problems, attitude towards their sorrows.

When characterizing an antisocial, desocialized personality, the prosecutor must also see the possibilities of its resocialization. “It is, without a doubt, sometimes tempting to go at the expense of the defendant, especially in those cases when the prosecutor is deeply convinced of his guilt and is outraged by his action... But one should not succumb to this temptation...”.

The most attentive listener to the prosecutor's speech is the defendant himself. He, of course, does not expect praise for his actions. Often the defendant has already cruelly condemned himself with the most terrible sentence - the sentence of his conscience. And if in his tragic hour a person hears only black words, this can completely break him.

A person cannot be described in the same colors. “There are angels and devils in people at the same time.” In a criminal act, a person turned to a certain situation with his one - shadow - side. But you can never say that the whole person is in this. As he sets off along the stage, he should hear a few encouraging words. He will remember these words for a long time. Evil words alone can only cause anger. (It is no coincidence that in criminal folklore, prosecutors get the most.)

Looking through collections of speeches by prosecutors, you are convinced that the least successful of all are personal characteristics (schematism, formality, extreme one-sidedness, didacticism, mentoring and arrogant swagger). Not a single prosecutor focused the court's attention on the circumstances mitigating the defendant's responsibility! But punishment can achieve its goal only when it is fair and strictly individualized. Faith in justice suffers from excessively harsh punishment. (Just as an individual may suffer from an overly lenient punishment.) Bargaining with justice, making an excessive request is not becoming a representative of the state. When making a proposal on a punishment, the prosecutor must name the type of punishment, its size or duration, and the conditions for serving the sentence. To talk about these conditions, they must be well understood. And to recommend them to a given person, a superficial familiarization with the case materials is not enough.

As noted by A.F. Horses, enthusiasm in the defense is excusable, enthusiasm in the prosecution is unforgivable.

Characteristics of the defendant's personality prosecutor - the most difficult part of his speech. At the same time, there is often a tendency for extreme “thickening of colors” to the point of unacceptable humiliation of human dignity. The prosecutor characterizes a person who has not yet been recognized as a criminal. But even in a committed crime, the whole personality is not always revealed. Sometimes an action reveals not the value orientations of a person, but only its regulatory characteristics. Often, an individual’s personality traits are deformed due to extremely difficult life circumstances.

Any person should be judged with extreme caution and care. If the prosecutor takes a one-sided accusatory position and seeks to accuse the defendant at all costs, then he is not limited in his choice of means. And often these means are extremely cruel and psychologically traumatic.

The court has the right to stop the mockery of the individual over the individual. The prosecutor can analyze only those personality qualities that determined the crime and were manifested in its commission. Exorbitantly broad personal generalizations are unacceptable in his speech. A.F. Kony called for the prosecutor to be charged with a moral duty - “restraint in speech, thoughtfulness and fairness in conclusions and, along with the condemnation of a proven crime - attitude towards the defendant without callous one-sidedness and without insulting his sense of human dignity.”

Sometimes some prosecutors, breaking the law, arbitrarily and unlawfully expand the circumstances aggravating liability, including the defendant’s failure to admit his guilt, giving contradictory testimony, and refusal to testify.

In the speech of the prosecutor, ridicule, a mocking tone, and gloating over human failures, grief and misfortune are unacceptable. Speaking in court should not be an occasion for demonstrating irrelevant rhetoric. The prosecutor's speech style must correspond to his high purpose - to accuse on behalf of the state.

In the speeches of many prosecutors, significant space is devoted to a simple retelling of the event recorded in the case file. Meanwhile, not all criminal cases require a mandatory presentation of factual circumstances in the speech of the prosecutor. Such a need arises only when the prosecutor insists on changing the scope of the presented charges, changing the qualifications of the crime, if there is disagreement with the defense on the factual circumstances of the case.

However, in these cases, the presentation of the factual circumstances of the case should be analytical rather than narrative. The analysis of the crime event by the prosecutor must be aimed at proving that the crime event took place and the defendant is guilty of committing it. In this case, the evidence is systematized according to a certain principle and must ensure the correctness of the accusation. At the same time, neither the obviousness of the case nor the admission of guilt by the defendant relieves the prosecutor of the obligation to prove the charge. All circumstances provided for in Art. are subject to proof. 68 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. Based on the totality of evidence, the prosecutor must form an internal conviction about the validity and legality of the accusation. (Otherwise he must drop the charge.)

The prosecutor must especially carefully analyze the exculpatory versions put forward during the judicial investigation by the defense attorney and the defendant. In this case, all possible logical consequences are derived from each version and compared with the available evidence.

In his polemics with the defense attorney, the prosecutor must adhere to subtle, psychologically based tactics so as not to lose his strategic position. He must also note all unconfirmed circumstances that must be excluded from the accusation. The prosecutor is obliged to withdraw charges if the materials of the judicial investigation do not support the charges brought against the defendant.

The prosecutor begins his “refusal” speech by explaining to the judicial audience the role and tasks of the prosecutor, the essence of the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 248 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. It is, of course, difficult for the prosecutor to step over the psychological barrier that has arisen, since he himself approved the indictment. (This, apparently, in particular, explains the almost complete absence of prosecutors refusing charges in judicial practice.) Usually he seeks to send the case for further investigation, where he drops it. However, this technique is illegal. Most prosecutors consider dropping a charge a failure in their work. But this is not true. The prosecutor cannot form his position in advance only on the conclusions of the preliminary investigation. His speech in court must be based on the facts established in the judicial investigation.

IN final part of the speech the state prosecutor is called upon to utter several weighty, lapidary phrases, giving his entire speech a touch of state significance. The task is not easy. Unsuccessful closing words of the prosecutor reduce the authority of justice.

The professionalism of the prosecutor is manifested, of course, not only in his oratory. No less important is his art of conducting interrogation in a judicial investigation, his ability to grasp the scheme of the case under consideration, see significant relationships in it, and pose a system of targeted questions. His future speech is being prepared for this part of the trial. Here he can find out all the circumstances that interest him. A meaningless judicial investigation cannot end with a brilliant speech in judicial debate.

Psychology of lawyer activity. Lawyer's speech

The basic tenet of justice is that only those persons who are truly guilty of committing a crime should be convicted and punished. The innocent must be unconditionally protected from unfounded accusations. Carrying out this task of justice is the business of all law enforcement officials. However, this task is most specialized to be performed by lawyers, and in relation to criminal proceedings - by defense attorneys.

Judicial protection is a constitutional right of a citizen. With the help of a defense lawyer, the accused (defendant) gets the opportunity to more fully use his procedural rights, actively participate in the study of materials collected on the case, challenge and refute the accusation against him, and prove a lower degree of his legal responsibility. The defense attorney has no right to harm his client. But the defense attorney does not replace the defendant - he occupies a separate procedural position and is not completely connected with the will and position of his client. He independently determines the direction and tactics of the defense and speaks in court on his own behalf.

However, the defense attorney and the defendant agree on their positions. Psychologically, a trusting relationship arises between them, relations of positional solidarity. (This kind of relationship cannot arise only if the defendant falsely incriminates himself.)

The defense attorney subjects the charge to a scrupulous critical analysis and helps the defendant take the most correct position. The defendant can refuse his defense lawyer even during the judicial debate. A lawyer does not have the right to refuse his client. Protection is most needed where it is difficult. But in any case, grounds for defense can be found. Even if the guilt of the defendant is indisputable, it is possible to act towards ensuring that the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the crime and the personality of the perpetrator. But the defense attorney can only protect the legitimate interests of the defendant, and the defense itself is carried out within the framework provided by law.

The main stage of the defender’s activity is the pronouncement defensive speech in court. Based on the materials of the judicial investigation, the defense attorney analyzes the collected evidence, systematizes those that can refute the charges brought against his client or can mitigate his responsibility, expresses his opinion regarding the possible punishment and on a number of other issues to be decided by the court.

Characterizing the personality of the client, finding out the true motives of his behavior, the defense lawyer makes excursions into the problems of human behavior in society and touches on the nuances of interpersonal relationships.

Unlike the activities of the prosecutor, who bases his speech only on proven facts, the defense attorney has the right to ask the court to acquit his client even if the evidence is sufficient to firmly believe his guilt. The defender uses everything that does not have a solid basis. He pays special attention to possible procedural and, especially, regulatory miscalculations of the prosecutor. (As French lawyers say: “We go to court only to prove that the prosecutor has not proven anything.”)

However, the task of the defense lawyer is not only to point out the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The defense attorney is also the subject of evidence, especially in cases when it comes to the confusion of the responsibility of the defendant and the qualification of the offense proposed by the prosecution. Countering the prosecution's arguments, the defense attorney gives his speech a polemical character and uses counter-evidence. The defense lawyer links his speech with the speech of the prosecutor. And the more reasoned and convincing the prosecutor’s speech, the more professionalism is required from the defense attorney. When speaking in a group case, a lawyer coordinates his speech with other defense attorneys.

A lawyer's defense speech consists of the following parts::

• Introduction.
• Analysis of the factual circumstances of the case.
• Analysis of the personal characteristics of the defendant.
• Analysis of the defendant’s motives for committing the act.
• Conclusion.

In the introduction The lawyer sets the task of capturing the attention of the audience. Therefore, the introduction should be short, but unusual, causing a heightened orientation of the listeners. It should be confidential, inviting to reasoning, critical analysis of what has already been said. The beginning should be very successful, pronounced clearly, confidently, without excessive pathos and tension. Any relevant fact whose truth is obvious can be used here. The defender, as it were, announces: we will talk about what is beyond doubt. He thinks like everyone else.

In the next one main part In his speech, the defense attorney focuses on the specific features of the case: these may be unusual conditions (bordering on accident) of the commission of the act, the manifestation of the personal characteristics of the defendant in extremely tense conditions. The lawyer prepares the audience to accept his position. Briefly, convincingly, without tiring the attention of the listeners.

The main points of defense are related to those issues that are subject to resolution by the court when rendering a sentence.

The defense attorney analyzes the personality characteristics of the client most carefully, accentuation of his character, increased reactivity to certain emotional situations. “The law requires that leniency be based on the circumstances of the case. But of all the circumstances of the case, of course, the most important thing is the defendant himself. Therefore, if in his life, in his personality, even in the weaknesses of his character arising from his temperament and his physical nature, you find a basis for leniency, you can add a voice of mercy to the strict voice of condemnation.”

The central place in characterizing the personality of the defendant is occupied by the analysis of his motivational sphere and the specific motive for the committed act, clarification of the true meaning of the actions of this person: what he was striving for, what he was guided by. The true motives of an individual determine the form of his guilt and act as mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The motive for a crime is a complex, dynamic phenomenon that determines the entire structure of human behavior, the entire mechanism of a criminal act - from the emergence of a criminal intention to its implementation and personal assessment of the result, the individual’s attitude towards this result. What is important here is the reason for the emergence of the motive, and the struggle between various motives, and the features of decision-making, the construction of a behavior program, the choice of means of its implementation, and motivational changes during the execution of the action. These are the structural components of complex human behavior, without which the study of the circumstances of a criminal case cannot be complete, comprehensive and objective.

Speaking about the motives of an individual’s behavior, it is necessary to reveal the strategy and tactics, the style of behavior of a given individual, to take into account the key circumstances of his life, which determined the appropriate method of adaptation (and maladaptation) in a given social microenvironment.

It is impossible to identify the motives of behavior without establishing the general orientation of the individual, revealing the inner world of a person, identifying the essential and random in the behavioral mechanism of the individual. But only such a detailed psychological characteristic of a person allows us to judge his guilt and the degree of responsibility for his actions. The qualifications and competence of a defender are in direct connection with his human capabilities.

A long-term accumulation of negative emotions, constant humiliation and insults can sometimes lead to an explosive manifestation of emotions and a narrowing of consciousness. The reason for such behavior can be seemingly insignificant events. The task of the defender is to reveal the deep layers of human life.

Eloquence is contraindicated in a lawyer's speech. It's better to say nothing than to say nothing.

Justification of a crime is also contraindicated for a lawyer - protecting the interests of the defendant does not mean absolving him of responsibility for the crime committed. The lawyer ensures that the court understands the subtlest nuances in the client’s behavior. The speeches of the largest lawyers were distinguished by deep psychologism, penetration into the hidden, intimate mechanisms of human behavior, and the disclosure of the socio-psychological foundations of the behavior of individual social groups. These speeches do not sparkle with fireworks of wit, but burn with the flame of sympathy for human grief, understanding of the weakness of human behavior under the yoke of external evil.

A lawyer should always stand firmly on a factual basis, and not rely on emotional influence. He must see and reveal the true conflicts of life, the unbearable burden of life circumstances that have fallen on his client, he calls on judges not to punish for what could not be overcome by a given individual under these circumstances, to separate, as F.N. Spit, the fall of the oppressed by evil from the one who does evil. A professionally skilled defense attorney subtly separates the problem of proving the fact of a crime and the degree of responsibility of the defendant. (Often, the jury, answering positively to the first question, returned a verdict of the defendant’s innocence.)

If the prosecutor is the exponent of the position of the law, then the lawyer is the exponent of the position of life, the position of compassion and mercy. But this is not a position of forgiving evil. “...You can forgive the defendants their guilt, but you should never leave in the hands of what they acquired through guilt; You can spare the defendants, but you should never spare them more than those whom they harmed. ...If you have come to judge a fact, then you must call it white if it is white; but if the fact is not pure, then they must say that it is not pure, and let the defendants know that they have to wash and wash themselves...”

Defense techniques used by a lawyer must be correct and tactful in relation to the personal characteristics of all participants in the process. A lawyer should never move from defending his client to blaming witnesses and victims.

The lawyer speaks in court after the prosecutor. Impressed by his speech and the last word of the defendant, the court retires to the deliberation room. However speaking after the prosecutor contains certain difficulties: the audience has already received a certain attitude, a certain mental state has arisen, and a certain evaluative position has been formed. The defender’s speech must be so convincing, reasoned and emotionally impactful as to overcome the existing psychological barrier.

However, unjustified shielding of the defendant, an attempt to pass off black as white, have nothing to do with the protection of the legitimate interests of the defendant.

Let's consider the speech of the defense attorney in the case of Levchinskaya, who was accused of murdering her husband Mokhov out of jealousy.

“In the file,” said the defense attorney, “there is a photograph of the murdered Mokhov. The impact of the iron crushed the skull, eyes, and nose. And this was done by Nadezhda Petrovna Levchinskaya - a fragile, weak woman, a gifted musician.

To accomplish this terrible deed, to kill a person like that, what storms are needed in the human heart, what extraordinary forces of motivation must be! The prosecution found them and called them: jealousy! It was she who pushed Levchinskaya to commit murder.

But, having said “jealousy,” the prosecution stopped halfway. Who was Leoninskaya jealous of? What made her, on December 26, the day of the murder, experience such an overwhelming outburst of jealousy that could explain what she did?

Analyzing the relationship between the spouses, the defense lawyer reveals the growth of traumatic relationships, the systematic accumulation of negative emotions in Levchinskaya, caused by the mocking, offensive behavior of her husband. Insults and threats forced her to leave home. At the request of her husband, she was forced to give her son from her first marriage to another family...

“Extremely tense relations in the family: they reached their peak when, during a quarrel, Mokhov shouted: “You feed Seryozha until he is a year old, he needs mother’s milk, then I will take your son away from you and drive you away!” These monstrous words struck Levchipskaya, she was horrified, but at that time she had still gained control of herself. She still clung to fragile hope... She convinced herself: only in blind malice can such a thing be said...

But when, a few days later, in a calm atmosphere, lounging on the sofa with a glass of wine in his hands, Mokhov said to Levchinskaya: “I thought, you feed the child not until he’s a year old, but until he’s ten months old, and then get out of here with your scratchy Yurka,” - she no longer controlled herself... Without remembering herself, shocked by what was instantly revealed to her with merciless clarity, shocked and offended by his cold cynicism, stupid and humiliating heartlessness, feeling how everything she had been taken away from her
lived, Levchinskaya, without remembering herself, grabbed an electric iron, hit her husband with it, and then beat and beat until she herself fell unconscious.”

This is how the defender showed the tragedy of the unfortunate woman. And it was not base jealousy, but a sacred sense of human dignity, an insult to female pride, the collapse of life prospects, hopes for the future and a range of other difficult, traumatic feelings that determined her semi-conscious actions with an iron that accidentally came to hand. And now the judges face the image not of a cruel killer, but of a tortured, suffering woman who, due to tragic circumstances, became a victim of an accident and who herself could not tell the court a single word about the tragedy of her fate, constantly being in tears. The defender defended truth, justice and mercy.

IN brief conclusion The defense attorney sums up everything that has been said, formulates final conclusions, and expresses his attitude to the issues that will soon appear before the judges in their deliberation room. He asks the court to acquit the defendant if his guilt is not properly established, to assign him the minimum sentence provided for in the relevant article of the Criminal Code, or to apply a suspended sentence to him.

Like the prosecutor, the defense attorney carries out the bulk of his activities in the judicial investigation. Here he shows maximum activity, submits petitions, puts forward a carefully thought-out system of questions, updating everything that can serve in favor of the client. Analyzing the course of the judicial investigation, the reaction of those present to individual details of the case, the defense lawyer makes “psychological” notes for himself, notes possible winning and losing areas. Listening to the prosecutor, public prosecutor, the defense attorney thinks through counteractions, outlines the main directions of the “breakthrough,” and determines the general scheme of his speech in the judicial debate.

A lawyer, entering into a criminal case already at the stage of preliminary investigation, systematically accumulates material for his judicial speech. Using his legal right, it is advisable for him to be present at all ongoing investigative actions. (He will be able to separately speak about their procedural consistency in his future speech, and during investigative actions he is obliged to respond to all violations of the law.) It is more expedient for him to submit all petitions not orally, but in writing, which ensures their inclusion in the case.

The lawyer remains with his client even after the verdict is announced, providing him with assistance during the passage of the case in the cassation court. The assistance of the legal profession in appealing a verdict is extremely important. After the trial, his client is in a state of depression, his activity, as a rule, is very reduced, and his ability to defend himself is extremely limited. The institution of judicial review, which is not limited by the time limit for filing a complaint, is also widely used. Knowing the criminal case well, the lawyer, having collected additional materials, draws up a complaint, presents it at a personal meeting with the appropriate supervisory authority, and gives oral explanations when considering the case.

Lawyers make a significant contribution to correcting miscarriages of justice. However, the quality of many cassation complaints indicates the professional incompetence of their drafters. In a number of cases, lawyers, violating their duties, do not bring complaints to the cassation instance, despite the client’s disagreement with the verdict. Many lawyers rightfully raise the question of the need for mandatory participation of lawyers when considering cases in courts of second instance.

The content of supervisory complaints must be very convincing and well-reasoned. Thus, a complaint indicating that the court at first instance did not call all the witnesses may be rejected with the indication that all the necessary evidence is available in the case. But a complaint indicating that the court, contrary to the requirement of the law, expressed its opinion on the case in advance before passing a verdict, decided the issue of proof (or lack of proof) of the accusation, spoke out about the advantages of some evidence over others - such complaints will certainly be verified.

The defendant's last word

The very name of this part of the trial sounds mournful. There are so many cases when a defendant, bursting into tears... cannot utter a word. And the most significant moment in his fate is that sincere repentance (as a circumstance mitigating responsibility) will be determined by the court based on his verbal (and not paraverbal) behavior. We must talk, remember again the events that torment our souls. You must also be able to express what is in your heart. But there is no strength... The mental state of the defendant is a special problem of legal psychology.

The sincerely repentant defendant sobbed bitterly when she was given the last word... And then the court did not see “sincere repentance” - there was nothing to write down in the relevant part of the sentence - there were no words...

The entire strictly regulated, official procedure of the court hearing has a strong psychological impact on everyone present. For the defendant, the court environment can have a stressful effect, cause mental shock, even a state of catharsis - an internal restructuring of the personality, a state of self-purification, and a strategic reorientation of behavior in the future. This is the meaning of the judicial ritual for a repentant person who has self-condemned his criminal behavior.

When a crime has been committed, but not yet even solved, most criminals begin to experience a state of mental discomfort and an increased level of anxiety - the discovery of the crime is highly likely, and there are no crimes without a trace.

Obsessive ideas and involuntary reminiscences draw the criminal to the crime scene and cause him increased interest in the progress of the investigation. In an inflamed consciousness, a psycho-traumatic hyperdominant arises, suspicion grows, and the adequacy of the perception of the surrounding stop is disrupted. As the famous Russian lawyer L.E. wrote. Vladimirov, “the crime relentlessly follows those who committed it.”

The subsequent arrest and pre-trial detention center have an impact on the psyche of the accused - anxious anticipation of trial, difficult adaptation to a criminalized environment, restrictions in meeting basic needs, social isolation, poor living conditions. Conflict situations in the detention center. Extreme tension during investigative actions. All this leads a person to extreme mental exhaustion even before the trial. Relations with justice, as a rule, are also conflictual - the initial denial of guilt turns into chronic denial with its constant revelations. It is difficult to maintain the position of false testimony - it is necessary to keep two worlds in mind: the real world and the fictitious world.

Constant intrapersonal conflict, motivational confrontation: to confess - not to confess. And the complete inability to speak out. Hence the extreme irritability, nervousness, and aggressiveness in the behavior of the accused and defendants. Hence the deep sigh of relief after a forced confession and increased talkativeness during the preliminary investigation. But now everything has already been said and the long, dreary wait for the trial begins. Finally, this long-awaited day comes. Abundance of people. Meeting with witnesses, victims, prosecutors, lawyers, judges. Visual contacts with family and friends. Sorrowful faces of family members.

And so: “The trial is coming! Please stand up!” Formal answers to “demographic” questions (last name, first name, patronymic, age...). Public incriminating testimony of the victim and witnesses. Extremely harsh speech from the prosecutor. Weak rescue attempts of the lawyer. Stony faces of the judges... “The defendant is almost never in a calm state. Natural anxiety after long, difficult weeks and months of waiting... Fear of the verdict, shame for oneself and loved ones and the irritating feeling of being exposed to the coldly curious gaze of the public - all this has an overwhelming or painfully exciting effect on the person sitting in the dock.”

Even the young people look decrepit on this bench. Scary bench! Ahead is the expectation of a frustrator: a sentence that will cause a state of frustration - an acute conflict emotional state associated with the collapse of life plans. You can't say much in this state. And the more a person’s conscience torments him, the less he can say. “Sincere repentance” is determined by eyes and tears, and not by words. But tears are not added to the case... And no one can measure the huge lump in the throat that cannot be swallowed... And the last word of the defendant is said: “I realized... I ask for mercy...”. The court retires to deliberate.

In the souls of the majority of those who sit in the dock, an intense value accentuation occurs. In some cases this is sincere, sincere repentance, and in some cases it is the strengthening of bitterness against the entire society. It is clear that fair and correct behavior of judges is of fundamental importance. Justice is expected from the court. But each participant in a criminal trial presents it differently. The convict has a very strong hope for leniency. His self-justifying tendency calls for a sharp mitigation of punishment. Only the defendant himself knows well everything that “mitigates his guilt.” But, as a rule, the verdict destroys his hopes. Society turns out to be more demanding than the demands of the guilty person on himself.

For a repentant person who “longs for redemption,” the sentence is not so severe. For the majority of defendants, a harsh sentence of a long period of isolation means a collapse in life, a severe, affective state of frustration, the collapse of all hopes in life. Freedom, like air, a person does not notice as long as it exists. By losing her, he loses the most precious benefit of human existence. By losing freedom for a very long period, a person essentially says goodbye to life itself, buries himself alive, and loses the meaning of life.

The court must take all this into account when retiring to the deliberation room to pronounce a verdict on human fate.

Psychology of sentencing

Sentencing is the last part of the trial. A meeting of judges to decide a sentence is an activity of a formal-informal group. On the one hand, the meeting must resolve a certain list of issues, on the other hand, each member of the panel of judges can speak out on any issue. In the final part of the trial, the final part of the cognitive-evaluative activity of the court is carried out. Along with the rational components of the conditions for making a judicial decision, the entire complex of socio-psychological phenomena that took place directly in the trial is taken into account - the position of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, the behavior of the victim, individual witnesses and the defendant, the mood of everyone present in the courtroom. This entire complex of behavioral factors, which has a certain influence on the position of judges, can be called judicial social perception.

The sentencing is carried out in connection with the final formation of a reliable mental model of the crime, everything that, according to the law, is included in the subject of proof. The verdict is the result of the forensic thinking of the court. At the same time, the question of the guilt of the defendant is resolved - the question of what antisocial qualities the personality of the criminal manifested in the committed socially dangerous act, how deep the antisocial defeat of the personality of the criminal is and what measure of punishment can be chosen for him in punitive terms and in relation to the tasks of his resocialization.

The complex process of rendering a legal, reasonable, fair and educationally effective sentence requires deep analytical activity of judges - they are called upon to accurately correlate the socially significant mental defects of a given individual with the specific corrective possibilities of the imposed punishment.

The central issue of the meeting of judges is the legal qualification of the committed criminal act, distinguishing it from related elements of crime.

It is psychologically important that when modeling a crime event, judges figuratively represent the specific life conditions of the commission of a crime. Intentional murder is classified as committed in a manner dangerous to the lives of other people only if the danger was real and not perceived. This reality can only be determined by schematically representing the location of the defendant, the victim and others present at the crime scene (for example, at the time of the shot).

The cause of many miscarriages of justice is subjectivity in the interpretation of certain legal categories.

What is the essence of justice? The answer to this question is related to understanding the nature, the essence of unlawful human behavior. “Different points of view on the essence of justice rest on different concepts of criminal guilt and, ultimately, on different understandings of human nature. According to one of these concepts, almost completely established in our criminal legal science and legislation, guilt is expressed only in the intentional or careless attitude of a sane person to his act...

Another concept, on which the “merciful” court is based, believes that in addition to intent or negligence, guilt also includes a moral assessment, that is, recognition of the manifestation of the evil, vicious will of the criminal in the act.”

From our point of view, only the last concept of guilt is the only correct one. Only a person who has violated social norms by his own evil will can be recognized as a criminal. If an unlawful act is committed under the pressure of insurmountable external circumstances, a person has the right to count on the mercy of justice. To call a person a criminal means to reveal the manifestation of his evil, that is, immoral, will.

The problem of fair punishment for a crime committed and its effectiveness in overcoming crime is one of the eternal problems of humanity. Punishment is a means of self-defense of society from everything that violates the conditions of its existence.

The fairness of criminal punishment is achieved by taking into account all the circumstances of the crime that interact with the personal qualities of the perpetrator. The court must balance the punishment with the severity of the act and with the degree of criminalization of the personality of the perpetrator. All negative characterological qualities of an individual that led to a criminal act must be analyzed and taken into account by the court.

For a qualified determination of punishment, a psychological analysis of the typological behavioral characteristics of the criminal’s personality is necessary. It should be taken into account that individual negative manifestations of an individual (for example, gloominess, inhospitability, secrecy, etc.) can create a general negative impression of the individual and influence the corresponding attitude towards him on the part of judges. In the structure of the committed criminal act, these qualities may not have significant significance.

When assessing the personal qualities of a criminal, one should analyze, first of all, those of his moral qualities that determine the socially significant direction of his behavior. Such socially significant negative qualities include, first of all, an individual’s system of views and behavioral stereotypes, based on his rejection of moral norms and a nihilistic attitude towards social demands. The immorality of an individual or a social group can have various forms of manifestation: misanthropy, cynicism, aggressiveness, fanaticism, vandalism, etc. Most criminal acts are associated with the individual’s self-liberation from his responsibilities to society, with the loss of a sense of shame and conscience.

An objective assessment of a criminal act depends on clarifying the questions: “What caused this act? Is a person capable of making a moral choice if his behavior is determined by objective circumstances, social and economic conditions?

Contradictions between moral requirements and objective conditions are a universal historical reality. And the individual remains human to the extent that he is capable of human moral choice even in the most difficult conditions. Immorality of behavior can be caused not only by defects in individual moral consciousness, but also by general defects in the individual’s mental self-regulation, the individual’s situational dependence, and his inability to be guided in his behavior by general principles.

The behavioral situation is especially complex in conditions of moral conflict, when the implementation of one moral norm leads to a violation of another norm. Some extreme situations require a very high degree of self-control, dedication, sacrifice of one’s interests, and increased control over one’s emotions. The inability of individuals to perform these regulatory manifestations is a circumstance that is subject to special analysis.

When assigning punishment, courts are called upon to take into account the nature and severity of the crime committed, the identity of the perpetrator, and the circumstances provided by law as mitigating and aggravating liability. When determining the nature and severity of the crime committed, the court classifies the act as particularly serious, less serious, and as crimes that do not pose a great public danger. In this case, it is taken into account how the crime was committed, to what extent it was carried out (stages of preparation, attempt or final crime), what role the perpetrator played in the structure of the group crime.

Particular insight must be exercised when analyzing crimes with unspecified intent.

It is known, for example, that pickpockets are the most persistent category of criminals. Their criminalization is due to the long acquisition of relevant skills. However, having been caught for an insignificant act, an experienced person with a long criminal record does not receive a proper legal assessment. The insignificance of the damage caused may lead to an inadequate assessment of the identity of the offender.

In Soviet legal doctrine, the concept of guilt was interpreted as a person’s mental attitude to his unlawful action or inaction and its consequences. Guilt means “a person’s awareness (understanding) of the inadmissibility (illegality) of his behavior and the results associated with it.” However, this definition of guilt is based on the outdated psychological concept of intellectualism (consciousness and intellect control behavior).

Human behavior, including its antisocial modification, is regulated not only by a conscious goal. Many criminal acts are committed at the lower, subconscious levels of self-regulation.

The basis of criminal liability is the presence in the actions of persons of the corpus delicti provided for by the criminal law - a system of signs of a crime.

In all crimes, as is known, a single four-component structure of the elements of a crime is distinguished: object - subject - subjective and objective side of the crime. The absence of at least one of the parties to the crime does not entail legal liability. Limiting the grounds of liability to the elements of a crime is the most important achievement of a legal society: in this case, a person can be imputed or blamed only for such an action (or inaction), the system of characteristics of which is precisely described in the law. In this case, the person is responsible only for what is subject to his will at the time of the commission of the act. Consequently, a person does not bear criminal responsibility for his value orientations, needs, desires, aspirations, mental states, although these factors determine criminal behavior.

The so-called random criminals, persons who have committed crimes due to a combination of difficult circumstances. Often, as mitigating circumstances, courts take into account various conditions of unfavorable personality formation, while showing an exculpatory tendency. A person, of course, is formed in a social environment, in various living conditions. However, the personality itself is responsible for its formation. The external is mediated by the internal - this is the main postulate of the psychology of personality development. And the conditions that contributed to the commission of the crime cannot be interpreted as circumstances mitigating responsibility. If an individual himself creates conditions conducive to the commission of a crime, then this aggravates his social danger.

All aggravating circumstances in one way or another characterize the personality of the criminal. Thus, committing a criminal act with particular cruelty characterizes a criminal extremely negatively. Cruelty is an external manifestation of a complex of negative personality traits: antisociality, malice, asyntony, degradation of the individual as a person. This or that type of aggravating circumstances indicates specific defects in the socialization of the individual, the deep criminalization of the perpetrator, the resocialization of which requires prolonged and intensive educational influence.

The imposition of punishment requires a qualified diagnosis of defects in the behavioral self-regulation of the defendant’s personality. In addition to value disorientation, these defects include increased impulsiveness, lack of restraint, and unadapted behavior in tense situations.

The law does not allow expansion of the list of aggravating circumstances. The list given in the law mitigating circumstances is only an example. As such, courts may also take into account other circumstances not specified in the law (for example, the advanced age of the perpetrator, his disability, etc.).

A circumstance mitigating legal liability is sincere, sincere repentance - public admission of guilt, self-condemnation of criminal behavior, deep regret about what happened, readiness to bear a well-deserved punishment. Repentance is a critical moment in the awakening of a person’s conscience - the basis for his further correction, the restoration of moral self-control of the individual. Repentance and readiness to atone for one’s guilt allow a person to build his life prospects and return to a decent life. Repentance contains elements of repentance - an individual’s regret about his actions, his firm decision to prevent their repetition, to correct their negative consequences - to restore justice through self-punishment.

There is no such serious violation of social norms from which there would not be a path to resocialization of the individual. The only hopeless situation is a person’s refusal to repent—unrepentance. Sincere remorse and repentance is a complex spiritual activity, proportional to the severity of the crime committed, the spiritual rebirth of the individual, his self-punishment, his acquisition of a new meaning in life, its correlation with newly realized social values, self-justification of oneself with pure thoughts for the future, making a firm decision about self-change. Remorse and repentance presuppose a radical reorganization by the individual of the image of his future life on new moral principles.

There is no greater punishment than self-condemnation. A painful feeling of remorse warns a person against incorrect behavior in the future. But remorse is inherent only in those who are able to identify themselves with society. A distinctive feature of the criminal is his inability to socially identify.

Already the judicial statutes of the 60s. century before last they established “swift, just and merciful court.” The concept " mercy“, which disappeared from our vocabulary during the period of totalitarianism, is now being rehabilitated again and established in the system of spiritual concepts of society. Is it applicable to justice? Isn't the letter of the law the only basis for justice? Doesn't "mercy" undermine the rule of law?

Here we come into contact with the very essence of justice” with different positions in its interpretation, different understandings of the very essence of man, his social responsibility and guilt when committing criminal acts. The concept of guilt, established in our criminal law and criminal legal doctrine, is associated only with the consciousness of the individual: intentional guilt is the individual’s conscious admission of the socially dangerous consequences of his act; negligence is also associated with the need to recognize and anticipate the socially dangerous consequences of one’s behavior. The “merciful” court connects guilt with the “vicious will of man”, with his moral principles.

The very concept of “criminal”, imposed on the guilty person by the court, is, in socio-psychological terms, a moral stigma, a negative social stamp. And not every illegal action provides grounds for imposing this shameful stigma on a person. In some cases, illegal actions may be committed not by the evil will of the individual, but under the yoke of external evil forces. In these cases, the jury was given the right to a merciful decision. Or rather, in one case - when an unlawful act does not deserve moral reproach.

It's time to revive our justice system moral concept of guilt, to connect guilt not only with the conscious sphere of the individual, but with the entire moral-subconscious structure of the individual, with his moral attitudes and stereotypes of socially significant behavior.

The traditions of Russian justice, through the efforts of outstanding judicial figures, were formed on the postulate: a person should not be presented with demands that are exorbitant for him. “The legislator of our times,” cried F.N. I don’t care, I must punish the will of man only when the evil it commits can be overcome.” The merciful court, not without reason, connected them with the universal Christian culture, which separates the fall of a person suppressed by evil from a person actively doing evil. The jury, at the call of high moral authorities, did not shy away from mercy, rendering a verdict: guilty, but deserves leniency. “And if our society had a jury, the “anti-Soviet”, “shabashniks”, “church members”, “disinterested criminals”, “hairdressers” (peasants who cut ears of collective farm wheat during the famine years), and unauthorized developers would not be condemned. However, then society would simply be different. A totalitarian regime and a jury are two incompatible things."
The right of mercy is the right of judges to correlate the norms of law with the norms of morality. Outstanding Russian judicial figures showed examples of steadfastness in defending morality if it was threatened by anti-legal norms of the law. (Acquittal of V. Zasulich by a jury chaired by A.F. Koni, acquittal of Savva Mamontov under the influence of his defense by F.N. Plevako, etc.)

Drawing up a sentence

The law establishes a number of general requirements for the structure of the sentence. It includes introductory, descriptive and conclusive parts; drawn up by one of the judges (issues of the relevant parts of the sentence are determined by the Code of Criminal Procedure). The verdict must be signed by all judges (dissenting opinions are stated separately in writing). The verdict is drawn up in publicly accessible, understandable terms. The description of the criminal act in it must correspond to the facts established by the court. An acquittal verdict should not contain language that calls into question the innocence of the acquitted person.

The justification for the court decision must contain: an analysis of the evidence, reasons why the court took into account some evidence and rejected others. The decision on punishment is formulated so that no doubts arise during the execution of the sentence.

To the number violations of sentencing most often include:

• incomplete statement of the circumstances of the crime;
• incomplete and inaccurate presentation of the testimony of victims and witnesses;
• a significant difference between the testimony of the victim described in the verdict and that set out in the protocol of the court session;
• lack of assessment of contradictions between the testimony of the defendant, victims and witnesses.

Execution of the sentence- implementation of the instructions of the sentence that has entered into legal force. The execution of a conviction consists of three stages: the execution of the sentence, bringing it to execution and the extended execution of the punishment.

The court is called upon to monitor the implementation of its sentences and to constantly receive information about the life activities of the conditionally convicted person, about the educational influence carried out by correctional labor institutions of correctional institutions. This is especially important when deciding issues of early and conditional release of a convicted person. However, as already noted, in reality the courts have almost no connection with the practice of correctional and educational activities of correctional institutions. Punishment and correction of a convicted person remain essentially different functions of unrelated state bodies.

• 1. The concept of psychology, its place in the system of sciences. Classification of branches of psychology. Modern trends in psychology, their characteristics.
• 2. Concept, subject, goals, objectives and content of legal psychology. History of legal psychology in Russia and abroad. Leading directions in domestic and foreign legal psychology.
• 4. Legal and psychological content of the problem of mental disorders that do not exclude sanity.
• 5. Basic approaches to the study of personality in domestic and foreign psychology. Legal and psychological aspects of the doctrine of personality. Typological system of K.Leonhard - A.E.Lichko.
• 6. Social stereotypes, prejudices: concept, psychological content, significance for legal psychology.
• 7. Legal psychology as a branch of applied legal psychology: concept, subject, goals, objectives, main problems. Legal and psychological aspects of legal socialization of the individual.
• 8. Biopsychosocial content about morality, law-abiding and abnormal behavior.
• 9. Psychological aspects of lawmaking.
• 10. Legal and psychological characteristics of legal consciousness as a system for reflecting legal reality. Characteristics of the functions of legal consciousness. Legal culture.
• 11. Psychological features of the deformation of law and legal consciousness in totalitarian societies.
• 12. Legally significant emotional states: concept, characteristics of individual types.
• 13. Medical (psychiatric), psychological and legal approaches to the category of sanity.
• 14. Psychological, legal and medical (psychiatric) approaches to the concept of affect.
• 15. Remote psychodiagnostics of personality in legal psychology.
• 18. Legal and psychological characteristics of attraction and empathy.
• 19. Legal and psychological characteristics of the locus of personal control.
• 20. Fundamental attribution error: content, significance for legal activity
• 21. Concept, content and organization of professional psychological selection for law enforcement agencies.
• 22. Professional deformation of the personality of law enforcement officers.
• 23. Psychological monitoring of law enforcement officers.
• 24. Criminal psychology as a branch of applied legal psychology: concept, subject, goals, objectives, main problems.
• 25. The concept of the personality of a criminal in law and legal psychology. Legal and psychological approaches to studying the personality of a criminal.
• 27. Psychological factors that stimulate and inhibit criminal behavior.
• 28. Aggression: concept, basic theories. Manifestations of aggression. Aggression management.
• 29. Legal and psychological aspects of victim behavior.
• 30. The concept of a small group. Classification of small groups. Small group structure. A criminal group as a special type of small group.
• 31. Intragroup processes in a small group (social facilitation, deindividuation, group polarization, group thinking, minority influence). Group norms and values.
• 32. The concept of conflict. Classification of conflicts. Psychological mechanisms and dynamics of conflicts. Conflicts in legal activities. Psychological foundations of conflict resolution.
• 33. Legal and psychological characteristics of the criminal subculture.
• 34. Psychology in crime investigation.
• 35. Investigative analysis of a crime (investigative profiling).
• 36. Legal and psychological characteristics of massacres.
• 37. Legal and psychological characteristics of thefts.
• 38. Legal and psychological characteristics of terrorism.
• 39. The problem of psychological influence in legal activity. Psychological forensic examination in cases of unlawful mental influence.
• 40. Legal and psychological characteristics of totalitarian cults.
• 41. Legal and psychological characteristics of interrogation as a form of communication specific to legal activity.
• 42. Psychological aspects of individual investigative actions.
• 43. Psychology of understanding the truth. The problem of the truth/falsity of the testimony of the participants in the process.
• 44. Possibility of identifying the truth/falsity of a message based on behavioral characteristics.
• 45. Legal and psychological features of the use of a polygraph in operational search and investigative activities.
• 46. ​​Psychologist as a specialist in criminal proceedings.
• 47. Forensic psychology as a branch of applied legal psychology: concept, subject, goals, objectives, main problems.
• 48.Adversarial approach to legal proceedings: greater fairness or bias?
• 49. Legal and psychological aspects of the testimony of witnesses and victims (persuasiveness, accuracy, errors).
• 50. Legal and psychological aspects of the defendant (physical attractiveness, resemblance to the judge/jury)
• 51. Legal and psychological aspects of jury trials.
• 52. Medical (psychiatric), psychological, legal approaches to the problem of legal capacity.
• 53. Psychological forensic examination as a branch of applied legal psychology. Legal foundations of psychological forensic examination.
• 54. Psychological forensic and psychiatric forensic examination: modern understanding of the relationship in Russia and abroad. Organization of psychological forensic examinations in Russia.
• Stages of conducting a psychodiagnostic study
• 55. Classification (types) of psychological forensic examinations. Preparation, appointment and conduct of psychological forensic examination. Qualification requirements for an expert psychologist.
• 56. Conclusion of a psychological forensic examination and its assessment by investigative authorities and the court.
• 57. Psychological forensic examination of juvenile accused (suspects, defendants): theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 58. Psychological forensic examination of witnesses and victims: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 59. Psychological forensic examination in cases of sexual crimes: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 60. Psychological forensic examination of legally significant emotional states: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 61. Psychological forensic examination in cases of incidents related to the control of equipment: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 62. Psychological forensic examination of the personality of the accused (suspect, defendant) and the motives for illegal actions: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 63. Posthumous psychological forensic examination: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 64. Psychological forensic examination in cases of claims for compensation for moral damage: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 65. Psychological forensic examination in disputes about the right to raise children: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 66. Psychological forensic examination of a criminal group: theoretical foundations, main issues to be resolved.
• 67. Psychological forensic complex examinations.
• 68. Penitentiary psychology as a branch of applied legal psychology: concept, subject, goals, objectives, main problems.
• 69. Stanford prison experiment (F. Zimbardo) and its significance for legal psychology.
• 70. Typical psychophysiological characteristics of convicts.
• 71. Psychophysiological consequences of imprisonment. Legal and psychological problems of adaptation of released people to living conditions in freedom.
• 72. Psychological means of correction of convicts.

• Forensic psychology– a scientific and practical discipline that studies the psychological patterns of the human-law system and develops recommendations aimed at increasing the effectiveness of this system.

  The methodological basis of forensic psychology is a systemic-structural analysis of the activity process, which is considered in conjunction with the structure of the individual and the system of legal norms.

  Thus, the focus of this science is on the psychological problems of reconciling man and law as elements of one system.

  Forensic psychology is a special part of legal psychology, and consists of the following sections: criminal psychology, psychology of the victim, psychology of juvenile delinquency, investigative psychology, psychology of the trial, forensic psychological examination and correctional labor psychology.

  Forensic psychology studies a person in its entirety; on the other hand, this scientific discipline has clearly expressed legal aspects that determine a complex of objective laws studied by the discipline. She develops psychological foundations:

  law-abiding behavior (legal awareness, morality, public opinion, social stereotypes);

  criminal behavior (personality structure of the criminal, criminal stereotype, structure of the criminal group, criminogenic situation, personality structure of the victim and the role of these structures in the genesis of criminal behavior);

  law enforcement activities (crime prevention, investigative psychology, psychology of the judicial process, forensic psychological examination);

  resocialization of offenders (correctional labor psychology, psychology of adaptation after release from correctional institutions);

  psychology of minors.

  Forensic psychology solves the following problems:

  studying the psychological patterns of the impact of law and law enforcement on individuals, groups and teams; development of scientific recommendations in order to increase the efficiency of law enforcement, strict adherence to the rule of law, the successful implementation of the tasks of justice and the re-education of persons who have committed crimes.

  Forensic psychology is a science that studies various psychological aspects of personality and activity in the context of legal regulation.

  48.Adversarial approach to legal proceedings: greater fairness or bias?

  Americans and continental Europeans see the competitive approach as fairer. This is shown in studies where subjects become participants in mock trials, during which either an adversarial or an investigative approach is used. Even those who lost in these mock litigations experienced less dissatisfaction with the outcome when the decision was reached through an adversarial process.

  The biggest difference between the adversarial and investigative approaches is that the adversarial approach creates more opportunities to level the playing field if one has a greater advantage over the other.

  This is a benefit when one side's advantage is based on some irrational bias, such as jurors' stereotypical opinions about a crime ("Drug dealers don't get prosecuted unless the police catch them red-handed"). In studies of mock jury trials, it was found that when evidence in a case is presented in an adversarial format, the subjects' pre-existing opinions have less influence in reaching a verdict than when the case is presented in an inquisitorial format.

  But when the advantage of one of the parties is based on facts and not on prejudice, then the usefulness of reducing such an advantage is questionable. Nevertheless, the use of adversarial methods can help equalize the position of the parties in this case as well. One study found that law students who were assigned to assist the weaker party during their internship were more diligent in investigating the case and defending their side's position when using adversarial procedures than when using investigative procedures. As a result, a case in which one side had a clear advantage appeared to impartial observers to be much more balanced than it actually was.

  When cases can be presented in such a way as to create the appearance of equality between the parties, there is a certain risk that a dangerous criminal will remain free. On the other hand, the American justice system operates under the presumption that being wrongly accused and imprisoned is the worst possible mistake. Since the adversarial approach encourages the weaker party to exert more effort, this approach can provide an acceptable, although perhaps not ideal, balance: on the one hand, the presumption of innocence for the accused, but on the other hand, law enforcement officials are still given greater rights and opportunities to conduct an investigation.

Forensic psychology

Region legal psychology, studying a range of issues related to legal proceedings: the psychology of judges, investigators and other law enforcement officials and the legal profession, the psychological content of their professional activities, selection and training methods, the psychology of the accused, witnesses, victims, the psychology of testimony, the psychological foundations of investigative and judicial actions (interrogation, confrontation, etc.), operational investigative activities; methodology and technique forensic psychological examination(see psychology of interrogation and testimony).

Brief psychological dictionary. - Rostov-on-Don: “PHOENIX”. L.A. Karpenko, A.V. Petrovsky, M. G. Yaroshevsky. 1998 .

Forensic psychology Etymology.

Comes from the Greek. psyche - soul, logos - teaching.

Category.

Section of legal psychology.

Specificity.

Studies the patterns of investigation, judicial review and crime prevention. The main task of forensic psychology is to find out what personality traits determine the successful professional activities of forensic investigators, and how they can be purposefully formed. Within its framework, issues of optimal methods of interaction between lawyers and other persons participating in a criminal case, the implementation of investigative and judicial actions (interrogation, inspection, confrontation, search, identification) are considered.

Psychological Dictionary. THEM. Kondakov. 2000.

See what “forensic psychology” is in other dictionaries:

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY- an area of ​​psychology that studies a range of issues related to lawbreakers (criminal psychology) and witnesses (witness psychology); a branch of forensic psychology that has not yet been developed much is judicial psychology as a science of... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Forensic psychology Encyclopedia of Law

Forensic Psychology- a branch of legal psychology that studies the patterns of investigation, judicial review and crime prevention. The main task of forensic psychology is to find out what personality traits determine... ... Psychological Dictionary

Forensic psychology- This article or section describes the situation in relation to only one region. You can help Wikipedia by adding information for other countries and regions. Forensic psychology is a branch of legal psychology that studies... ... Wikipedia

Forensic psychology- (legal psychology) a branch of psychology that studies the peculiarities of the manifestation of the patterns of mental life in the field of crime prevention, legal proceedings, correction and re-education of criminals. Data from S.p. used in... ... Forensic encyclopedia

Forensic psychology- a field of legal psychology that studies a range of issues related to legal proceedings: the psychology of judges, investigators and other law enforcement officers and the legal profession, the psychological content of their professional activities,... ... Psychological Lexicon

Forensic psychology- see Legal psychology... Large legal dictionary

Forensic psychology- a branch of psychology in which the knowledge of psychology is applied to solve certain legal problems. For example, issues such as the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the psychology of decision making, including group decisions, motivation are studied... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

Forensic psychology- a branch of science that studies the peculiarities of the manifestation of the laws of mental life in the field of crime prevention, legal proceedings (See Legal proceedings), correction and re-education of criminals. S. p. explores psychological... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY- The branch of psychology that applies psychological knowledge and laws to legal problems. Usually distinguished from forensic psychiatry. She studies a number of problems of a psychological nature, including the reliability of evidence, the reliability of testimony... ... Explanatory dictionary of psychology

Books

• Medical and forensic psychology. Lecture course. Textbook, Dmitrieva T., Safuanova F. (eds.). "Medical and forensic psychology. Course of lectures". The textbook is the first domestic publication in which the lectures of leading scientists reflect a systematic interdisciplinary...

Legal and forensic psychology

Subject and system of legal psychology

Legal psychology includes various areas of scientific knowledge, is an applied science and belongs equally to both psychology and jurisprudence. In the field of social relations regulated by legal norms, the mental activity of people acquires unique features that are determined by the specifics of human activity in the field of legal regulation.

Law is always associated with the normative behavior of people. Below we will briefly look at these concepts, after which we will move on to consider the system “man – law” and “man – law – society”, and then to the analysis of law enforcement and other types of legal activities.

Being an active member of society, a person commits actions. actions that obey certain rules. Rules that are binding for a specific set (mass) of people are called norms of behavior, which are established by people themselves in the interests of either the whole society or individual groups and classes.

All norms of behavior are usually divided into technical and social. The former regulate human activity in the use of natural resources (fuel consumption rates, electricity, water, etc.) and tools. Social norms regulate human actions in relationships between people.

Social norms include customs, morals and law. All social norms, based on the assessments accepted in society, require either abstaining from certain actions or performing some active actions.

The methodological feature of legal psychology is that the center of gravity in cognition is transferred to the individual as a subject of activity. Thus, if the law primarily identifies the offender in a person, then legal psychology examines the person as an offender, a witness, a victim, etc.

The mental state, as well as the stable characteristics of the character and personality of the victim, offender, witness, develop and proceed in no other way than by obeying general psychological and psychophysiological laws. The specificity of the subject of legal psychology lies in the originality of the vision of these states, in the study of their legal significance in the process of establishing the truth, in the search for scientifically based methods of reducing the possibility of violating legal norms through psychological correction of these states, as well as the personality traits of offenders.

The investigator, conducting a preliminary investigation, and the court, examining the case in court, find out the complex intertwining of human relationships, sometimes difficult to take into account psychological, subjective qualities of people, the motives for which a person committed a crime. Thus, in cases of murder, incitement to suicide, intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, hooliganism, and theft, essentially psychological issues are considered - self-interest and revenge, deceit and cruelty, love and jealousy, etc. At the same time, the judge, prosecutor, An investigator or an employee of the investigative agency deals not only with criminals, but also with a variety of people who act as witnesses, victims, experts, and witnesses. The personality of each of them was formed in certain conditions of social life, their ways of thinking are individual, their characters are different, their relationships to themselves and to the world around them are unique.

Having an accurate understanding of why we act the way we do gives us the opportunity to better understand our lives and take more conscious control over them. The judge and investigator, prosecutor and defense attorney, administrator and teacher of correctional colonies must be armed with psychological knowledge that allows them to correctly navigate the complex and confusing relationships and conflicts that they have to navigate. There is no doubt that the importance of psychological science is necessary for everyone who deals with people, who is recognized as influencing them, educating them. The science of mental life and human activity, which studies processes such as sensation and perception, memorization and thinking, feelings and will, personality traits with individual characteristics such as temperament, character, age, inclinations, cannot but have a very direct relationship to the disclosure and investigation of crimes, consideration of cases in court.

To a large extent, the tasks of legal psychology are determined by the needs to improve the practical activities of justice authorities.

Investigators and court workers, daily faced with various manifestations of the psyche of a defendant, victim, witness, of course, try to understand the complexities of their mental world in order to correctly understand it and properly evaluate it. The peculiarity of the very profession of investigator, prosecutor and judge is that it gradually forms certain knowledge about the human psyche, forcing one to operate with the principles of so-called practical psychology and to be somewhat knowledgeable in this area. However, the volume and quality of such knowledge, mainly intuitive, cannot go beyond the individual experience and personal data of a particular employee. In addition, such empirical knowledge about the human mental world, acquired from case to case, is unsystematic, and therefore it cannot satisfy the ever-increasing demands of life. For the most objective and qualified solution to the many issues that constantly arise before forensic investigators, along with legal and general erudition, professional experience, extensive psychological knowledge is also required.

While studying the shadow sides of life, sometimes in its most repulsive manifestations, the investigator, the judge must be able to maintain personal insensitivity (immunity) to negative influences and avoid unwanted distortion of personality, the so-called professional deformation (suspicion, self-confidence, accusatory bias, etc.) .

The peculiarities of the work of these workers make moral and psychological hardening necessary, since they are associated with a significant strain of mental and moral forces.

Lawyers need to be able to rationally distribute their strengths and abilities in order to maintain work productivity throughout the entire working day, to possess professional psychological qualities in order to obtain optimal evidentiary data with the least amount of nervous energy. In the consistent development of such professional qualities as flexibility of mind and character, keen observation and tenacious memory, self-control and endurance, integrity and fairness, organization and independence, the recommendations of psychological science are of great importance, which indicates the right ways and means of their formation. Along with this, further increasing the efficiency of the work of forensic investigators requires a comprehensive, in-depth development of the psychological foundations of forensic tactics, as well as the psychology of other participants in criminal proceedings (accused, victim, witness, etc.). The psychological competence of forensic investigators helps “to prevent mistakes, sometimes fraught with serious consequences, that can arise when judging human actions due to underestimation of psychological aspects” [Rubinshtein S.L. Fundamentals of general psychology. Ed. 2nd. M., 1946. P. 26.].

Legal psychology is a scientific and practical discipline that studies the psychological patterns of the “man – law” system and develops recommendations aimed at increasing the effectiveness of this system.

The methodological basis of legal psychology is a systemic-structural analysis of the activity process, which is considered in conjunction with the structure of the individual and the system of legal norms.

Thus, the focus of this science is on the psychological problems of reconciling man and law as elements of one system.

Exploring the problem of the subject and system of legal psychology, the author proceeds from the fundamental position that psychological patterns in the field of law enforcement activities are divided into two large categories: law-abiding activities and activities associated with certain offenses.

These methodological prerequisites, as well as the principle of hierarchy, determine the construction of a system of legal psychology, in which psychological patterns in the field of law-abiding behavior and in the field of social pathology are consistently analyzed).

The general part of legal psychology outlines the subject, system, history, methods, connections with other scientific disciplines, as well as the foundations of general and social psychology. A special section describes the patterns of law-abiding behavior, legal consciousness and intuition of an individual, their role in the formation of an individual’s immunity to a crime situation.

A special part of legal psychology, which is often called forensic psychology, consists of the following sections: criminal psychology, victim psychology, psychology of juvenile delinquency, investigative psychology, trial psychology, forensic psychological examination and correctional labor psychology.

Legal psychology is an independent psychological discipline that studies a person in its entirety. On the other hand, in this scientific discipline legal aspects are clearly expressed, which determine the complex of objective laws studied by this discipline. She develops psychological foundations:

law-abiding behavior (legal awareness, morality, public opinion, social stereotypes);

criminal behavior (personality structure of the criminal, criminal stereotype, structure of the criminal group, criminogenic situation, personality structure of the victim and their role in the genesis of criminal behavior);

law enforcement activities (crime prevention, investigative psychology, psychology of the judicial process, forensic psychological examination);

resocialization of offenders (correctional labor psychology, psychology of adaptation after release from correctional institutions);

psychology of minors (psychological characteristics of the problems set out in paragraphs 1 – 4).

Legal psychology solves the following problems:

studying the psychological patterns of the impact of law and law enforcement on individuals, groups, and teams;

Along with the development of criminal psychology, victim psychology, investigative psychology and other disciplines included in the structure of a special part of legal psychology, in recent years in our country research into the psychology of legal work, in particular its individual aspects, professiograms of legal professions, professional selection and professional orientation in the field of jurisprudence.

To optimize law enforcement activities, it is necessary, on the one hand, a detailed description of all aspects of this complex professional activity, personal qualities and skills that are implemented in it, and, on the other hand, scientifically based recommendations on the compliance of a specific human personality with the objective requirements for the legal profession, on the methodology for selecting and placing legal personnel.

The psychology of legal work is an independent psychological discipline: the complex of main problems it studies is related to legal professionography, professional consultation and orientation, professional selection and professional education, specialization and prevention of professional deformation of law enforcement officers. However, there are a number of borderline aspects in which this discipline is included in the system of legal psychology: for example, the individual characteristics of a worker’s personality and their implementation in law enforcement (individual interrogation style), the dominance of various aspects of professional activity at various stages, the role of personal qualities in achieving success (or failure) in various professional situations, etc.

The synthesis of psychology and jurisprudence in scientific disciplines - legal psychology and the psychology of legal work - should lead to the mutual enrichment of these sciences, the resolution of one of the most pressing problems in this intersecting area - increasing the efficiency of law enforcement.

Legal psychology in its modern understanding is a science that studies various psychological aspects of personality and activity in the conditions of legal regulation, can successfully develop and solve the complex of problems facing it only thanks to a systematic approach.

Modern science is characterized by the combination of two opposing trends - increasing differentiation and integration of various sciences. The emergence of special disciplines is explained, of course, by the growing differentiation and progress of analytical methods of science. However, in the field of human science, this trend is intertwined with synthetic approaches to real integral or complex types of human activity. Therefore, the specialization of knowledge in this area is most often combined with a comprehensive unification of individual private teachings into a general theory of a particular formation, property or type of human activity [See: Ananyev B.G. On the problems of modern human science. M. 1977. P. 14.].

The study of the genesis of offenses is characterized by different approaches to these phenomena depending on the scientific discipline, since the structure of a particular offense can be analyzed from different points of view. The legal approach characterizes it as an act consisting of four elements: object, subject, objective and subjective sides. For criminology, sociology and psychology, a dynamic, genetic approach is more productive, allowing one to study human behavior in development.

The idea of ​​an integrated approach to defining the subject and tasks of criminal psychology was expressed back in the mid-20s by S.V. Poznyshev. “Criminal psychology,” he wrote, “studies all those mental states of the individual that have one or another influence on criminal responsibility, and the subject of criminal psychology is not individual mental processes in their possible mental justification, but the personality in a certain range of its manifestations related to to the field of crime or the fight against it” [Poznyshev S.V. Criminal psychology. M. 1926. P. 9.].

An important task of criminal psychology is to identify internal personal prerequisites that, in interaction with a certain external situation, can create a criminogenic situation, i.e. determine criminogenic personal qualities and prerequisites. Further, within the framework of criminal psychology, specific personality characteristics are established that causally determine criminogenic prerequisites in it (defects of legal consciousness, morality, culture of emotions, etc.), and a causal relationship is established between the identified defects and the tendency to commit a certain category of crimes. Criminal psychology studies the mechanism of personality immunity to a criminogenic situation and, through knowledge of the patterns of this phenomenon, develops recommendations for crime prevention.

Similar tasks (“on the other side of the barrier”) in a criminogenic situation are set and must be solved by the psychology of the victim.

The psychology of the victim studies the factors in the formation of the victim’s personality, his behavior in the genesis of the crime, and also develops practical recommendations for the method of interrogating the victim and instilling in people moral and volitional qualities that would provide protection from criminal attacks. Victim psychology is closely related to criminal law, criminology, social psychology and personality psychology.

Psychological studies of the personality of the victim and his activities seem to be very relevant, as they contribute to the solution of a number of issues: more correct classification of crimes, the study of their causes and conditions, a more comprehensive investigation of criminal cases, the discovery of new evidence, etc.

The problem includes the following aspects: methods for studying the personality of the victim, studying the behavior of the victim immediately before the crime event, at the time of the crime event, after it and, finally, at the stage of preliminary investigation.

The complex problem of the formation of criminal intent can be studied quite deeply, primarily within the framework of criminal psychology and the psychology of the victim.

In a special section, criminal psychology examines the psychological aspects of careless crime, including domestic and professional negligence.

Crime is a great social evil, and juvenile delinquency is an evil that has been multiplied many times over. A significant number of especially dangerous repeat offenders committed their first crime before the age of 18. A society that wants to get rid of crime, first of all, must raise children correctly.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, juvenile delinquents include those who do not have good relationships in the school community.

Thus, legal psychology studies the antisocial behavior of a minor and the influence of external microenvironmental factors on it, as well as the personality characteristics of a teenager, which determine his individual response to various “life failures,” and develops recommendations aimed at preventing child and youth crime.

A preliminary investigation is a purposeful process, the purpose of which is to reconstruct (restore) the event of a crime that took place in the past, according to traces discovered by the investigator in the present (Articles 20.21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR).

It is possible to distinguish at least two directions of such reconstruction: reconstruction of the crime event itself and the objective conditions that contributed to its commission. The final goal of such reconstruction is to obtain comprehensive information about the object and the objective side of the crime.

The second direction of reconstruction is the study of the personality of the criminal in its evolution, development, the study of the mechanism of formation of criminal intent, the criminal attitude, the study of the subjective attitude of the criminal to the committed act. Such a reconstruction is necessary in order to obtain comprehensive information about the subject and the subjective side of the crime, about the specific causes of this crime, which manifest themselves through the criminal attitudes and criminal behavior of the individual under study.

Within the framework of investigative psychology, the psychological foundations of the most important investigative actions are developed: examination, interrogation, search, identification, etc. - and psychological recommendations are developed aimed at increasing their effectiveness.

The psychology of considering a criminal case in court examines the patterns of mental activity of all persons involved in the consideration of a criminal case in court, as well as the educational impact of the trial and verdict on the defendant and other persons, the role of public opinion as a factor influencing the trial process, etc. This section is closely related to the following sciences: criminal law, criminal procedure, social psychology, judicial ethics.

Psychological analysis of the judicial process makes it possible to develop recommendations aimed at increasing the efficiency of justice, the culture of the process, and the maximum educational impact on all its participants.

Correctional labor psychology studies the psychological aspects of the re-education of persons who have committed crimes, their introduction to work and adaptation to normal existence in a normal social environment, the dynamics of the personality of the convict, factors influencing his re-education, the structure of the group of convicts, and also develops practical recommendations for re-education and resocialization of convicts.

These tasks cannot be solved without the use of data from various sciences that study the personality of a person, his relationship with the team, as well as the role of various factors that positively or negatively affect the personality of the convict. One of the most relevant sciences that contribute to solving the above problems is correctional labor psychology, which studies the patterns of mental activity of a person serving a sentence and the main factors influencing him in the process of re-education: regime, work, team, educational influence, as well as optional factors - family, friendships with persons in freedom, study, hobby for amateur activities, etc.

Correctional labor psychology is closely related to correctional labor law, pedagogy, labor psychology and social psychology.

The synthesis of psychology and jurisprudence in a new scientific discipline - legal psychology - should lead to the mutual enrichment of both sciences, the resolution of one of the most pressing problems - increasing the efficiency of law enforcement.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.