| |
The issues of choosing a preventive measure for a suspect or accused, taking into account the variety of preventive measures provided for by criminal procedure legislation and their alternative and complementary nature, are very relevant in modern conditions. At the same time, the problem of choosing preventive measures, alternative to the most severe measure of restraint – detention, is becoming particularly relevant. House arrest is no exception. On the one hand, house arrest is a slightly less strict (compared to detention) measure of restraint, since it implies restriction of freedom due to the presence of the suspect or accused not in institutions of the penitentiary system, but in his usual home conditions (or a medical institution). On the other hand, the issue of the real "enforceability" of house arrest remains unresolved, due to various reasons. Firstly, there is a problem of proper technical equipment, bodies responsible for the execution of house arrest, and means of controlling persons under house arrest. Secondly, when house arrest is chosen without other preventive measures (for example, the prohibition of certain actions), there is no real provision for the complete isolation of the suspect or accused of committing a crime and preventing his undesirable behavior. Since a person under house arrest can use means of communication, including the Internet, to exchange information, coordinate the actions of other persons not under house arrest, as well as to continue illegal acts. The unresolved reality of the "enforceability" of house arrest leads to the fact that in practice, the number of cases of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest and aimed at humanizing the criminal process is minimized.
Keywords:preventive measures; house arrest; detention; alternative preventive measure, economy of coercion.
|
LEGAL
INFORMATION:
