Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

this legal provision is not adhered to, any panel hearing is meaningless. By violating this precept, the judge becomes the legislator in a specific case, which puts them higher than the law and alienates them from justice.

The society needs a solution for the problem of a judge expressing their individual opinion that differs from the views of most judges in a panel reviewing the criminal case. The issue is becoming all the more pressing as the state reinforces the optionality of law – for the first time in the history of Russian criminal procedure. This means that the legislator bases the very possibility of trial and sentencing on the position and will of the parties to the case.

What makes the issue even more important is the new statutes, which allow the parties to request to familiarize themselves with the judge’s dissenting opinion regarding not only the first-instance judgment but also the verdict by the court of appeal, always passed by several judges. There arises a natural need for an example, as experience is generally passed from the ancestors over to the posterity, which allowed the humanity to survive and preserve its culture.

As a religious studies scholar, I cannot fail to note that the dissenting opinion allowed the judge to exercise the freedom of his conscience and express in writing his principles with regard to the criminal trial.

1.2. The Inspector Judge

In another case, a people’s assessor expressed her personal opinion as an adjudicator. However, that opinion did not evolve into a full-fledged judicial dissent due to critical thinking, as difficult as it is to exhibit in the culture of argument.

In this example, a district court comprising a presiding judge and two people’s assessors reviewed a criminal case and delivered an effective judgment of conviction.

While examining the case, one of the people’s assessors implicitly considered the defendant not guilty and wished for his release from detention. The other, however, reviewed the case thoroughly and showed understanding that the organizational and leadership duties rest with the presiding judge. The latter, in turn, brought the assessors in on every court decision. He took their opinions into account every time, even when it was not required by the law but was left to the judge’s discretion owing to his procedural powers.

Moreover, the presiding judge ensured that all the important circumstances of the trial are attended by the defense, prosecution, and members of the court. If any of the trial participants (especially people’s assessors) did not fully understand any of the meaningful circumstances, the presiding judge moved back and further examined the corresponding evidence.

In time, the court revealed the exact picture of what was done by the defendant. For this reason, the latter ceased to aggressively deny his involvement in the offense, although he did not plead not guilty, either.

The evidentiary process exposed the guilt of the defendant. The professional judge laid out in writing all the work performed by the court. He proposed that the people’s assessors review the document and provide comments and tips that would improve the trial. In doing so, he didn’t rush his colleagues, but instead ensured a calm and matter-of-fact discussion of the proceedings, trusting in those women’s experience. He put faith in the people’s assessors’ awareness of their civic duty of administering justice, a duty that they voluntarily took upon themselves, supported by their work collective at the place of employment. Those lay judges turned out the best representatives of the society of their days – such was the conclusion of the professional judge who executed justice along with them in various courts, including people’s (district), military (garrison), and oblast (provincial).

The people’s assessor who favored the defense but had no grounds for recusal examined the judge’s manuscript carefully. She declared that she was ready to sign the document because it was factually correct. However, it could be so only if the document contained the truth publicly established during the court proceedings. Thus, there was no reason for judicial dissent. In that historical period, Russian criminal justice was traditionally continuous and employed standard criminal procedure. Under that procedure, the court, comprising a presiding judge and two people’s assessors, was to take all the legal measures necessary to examine all facts of the case fully and objectively, identifying the incriminating and exonerating circumstances, as well as any factors mitigating or aggravating the responsibility of the culprit.

By April 1, 1991, the judge was working on 98 criminal cases subject to standard procedure, which did not fit into his and his secretary’s safes. Besides, the judge had dozens more pending civic cases and materials: from a penal colony, from a special garrison for “chemists”—probationers working on national construction sites, and from a psychiatric ward. Therefore, the judge was overloaded with work and had no free time.

…Still, the lawful, reasonable, and just verdict was promptly signed in the chambers. After the presiding judge proclaimed the sentence and asked the convicted man a procedural question, he calmly answered that he undestood the verdict clearly. Then he added that he agreed with it.

The legislator based the idea of the verdict on the empirical way of cognition. This means that the judgment of guilty or not guilty is informed with what the court established during the trial, i. e. knowledge that matches reality. Copying the allegations of investigative authorities, however, is prohibited by the law on the court verdict and abrogates the justice. For this reason, the legal system of defense against accusation, in particular the presumption of innocence, provides an additional guarantee for the respect of human rights during criminal proceedings – the dissenting opinion of the judge. The dissent can be used in appealing against verdicts before any higher court, including the highest judicial body of the state and the President of Russia who has the power of pardon.

1.3. The Shooting of Workers

In the third case, the visiting session of the