Moral standards are similar to legal ones. The thing is that they act as the main mechanism by which human behavior is formed. Thus, moral norms today are unwritten rules and laws that have developed over several millennia of human existence. In the legal field, laws are legally enshrined.
Moral culture
Moral norms and values are the practical embodiment of morality. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that they determine the consciousness and characteristics of people’s behavior in all spheres of life: everyday life, family, professional activity, interpersonal relationships.
Moral standards are a set of rules defining human behavior, the violation of which causes harm to society or a group of people. They are formulated in the form of a specific set of actions. For example:
- you need to give way to those who are older;
- say hello when meeting another person;
- be generous and protect those who are weaker;
- arrive on time;
- speak culturally and politely;
- wear this or that clothes, etc.
About moral requirements
Judging by the comments, it is necessary to clarify the constantly (involuntarily) substitutions that occur.
A moral requirement is a requirement of the “you must” type, and you must regardless of your interests or the interests of your group. If you do not act as you should, you are guilty and worthy of condemnation.
So the question is what is this requirement based on. Who should I owe it to?
They are NOT moral requirements.
1.Promises of benefit/disadvantage, personal or collective. “Take care of your reputation, create connections, be honest and reliable - this will help you make a career” is an absolutely true statement, but it is not about morality even once. You may (and obviously do) benefit from clearly immoral actions. Moreover, a hero who gives his life for others, say, a fireman, or a doctor in a Covid-19 outbreak, receives the maximum disadvantage - and that is why pure morality is visible in his action, as described above.
2. Requirements of conformity. If you do what they want from you, they will give you candy, and if not, then they will slap you in the neck. Again, abolitionists or anti-fascists fought against their society and suffered for it - but we support them, not their society.
3. Appeal to the interests of certain large communities - well, you want to die for the working class/Aryan race? No, I don’t want to, thank you. Why should I care about the interests of some groups? And not even groups, but some people broadcasting on their behalf. Because it benefits me? Firstly, it’s not a fact, and secondly, we have already talked about the benefits.
4. Attempts at shaming “ugh, how disgusting you are, all honest people are eager to die for the working class/Aryan race, and you’re swearing at me!” I had a better opinion of you! These are attempts at emotional pressure, which in no way explain why I owe someone.
Addition:
5. Moral demands have nothing to do with empathy. Empathy (the ability to feel for another person) is a different phenomenon than morality.
The statements “you feel” and “you should” are different statements, there is no causality between them.
A moral requirement is a demand of the “you must” type, and you must, regardless of your experiences.
I should not, for example, steal - regardless of whether I have empathy for the potential victim or not. The other person is not to blame for my experiences (or lack thereof). I just have to refrain from stealing, that's all.
If a thief says, “I didn’t feel empathy for this guy,” we are unlikely to justify him on this basis.
Another thing is that this is an attempt to smuggle in all that moral duty - you must experience empathy. Epmatia is good. But this brings us back to the same problem - why should it and to whom? Who are you to tell me what I should? Why you and not another group of pointers?
In a theistic context, I am indebted to God; I have, as His creation, a genuine goodness and a purpose to which some actions correspond and others do not.
In atheism, any moral demands are attempts by various groups of people to pretend to be an absolute - and to broadcast “you must,” meaning “we want it this way.”
The foundation for building a healthy personality
Spiritual and moral norms and values constitute the image of a person who is perfect in the sense of conforming to the pattern of piety. This is the portrait you should strive for. In this way, the ultimate goals of an action are expressed. An image such as Jesus in Christianity is used as an ideal. He tried to instill justice in human hearts and was a great martyr.
Moral rules and norms play the role of personal life guidelines for a particular person. A personality sets its own goals, in which its positive or negative side is manifested. Most people strive for happiness, freedom, and knowledge of the meaning of life. Moral standards help them regulate their moral behavior, thoughts and feelings.
Morality functions in society as a combination of three structural elements, each of which represents one aspect of morality. These elements are moral activity, moral attitudes and moral consciousness.
Education of moral standards of behavior in the team and in society. article
“A real educator is only one who awakens the dormant spirit in a child and gives him strength for real organic development” P.P. Blonsky
“In educating a person, it is important to ensure that moral truths are not only understandable, but also become the goal of every person’s life, the subject of one’s own aspirations and personal happiness.”
Issues of moral development, education, and human improvement have always worried society at all times. Especially now, when cruelty and violence can be encountered more and more often, the problem of moral education is becoming increasingly relevant. Who else but a teacher who has the opportunity to influence the upbringing of a child should give this problem the most important role in his activities. Moral education is a process aimed at the formation and development of a child’s holistic personality, and involves his formation towards the Motherland, society, team, people, work, his responsibilities and himself. The task of moral education is for teachers to transform the socially necessary requirements of society into internal incentives for the personality of each child, such as duty, honor, conscience, and dignity.
The basis of education, which determines moral development, is the formation of humanistic relations among children, regardless of the content, methods, and forms of educational work. In the education of any moral quality, various means of education are used. In the general system of moral education, an important place is occupied by a group of means aimed at the formation of moral judgments, assessments, concepts, and the education of moral convictions. This group includes ethical conversations, lectures, and debates on ethical issues.
Knowledge of moral standards is a prerequisite for moral behavior, but knowledge alone is not enough. The criterion for moral education can only be the actual actions of children and their motivations. The desire, readiness and ability to consciously observe moral norms can only be cultivated through the process of long-term practice of the child himself, only by practicing moral actions.
School is the main link in the system of educating the younger generation. At each stage of a child’s education, its own side of upbringing dominates. In the education of primary schoolchildren, this aspect will be the formation of habits of moral behavior: children master simple moral norms and learn to follow them in various situations. The educational process is closely related to moral education. In the conditions of a modern school, when the content of education has increased in volume and become more complex in its internal structure, the role of the educational process in moral education is increasing. The content of moral concepts is determined by the scientific knowledge that students receive by studying academic subjects. Moral knowledge itself is no less important for the overall development of schoolchildren than knowledge in specific academic subjects.
The formation of moral character occurs in the process of children’s multifaceted activities (games, studies), in the various relationships they enter into in various situations with their peers, with children younger than themselves and with the teacher.
On the threshold of school life, a new level of self-awareness of children arises, most accurately expressed by the phrase “internal position.” The fact of the formation of such a position is internally manifested in the fact that in the child’s mind a system of moral norms stands out, which he follows or tries to follow always and everywhere, regardless of the circumstances.
For students, any action that leads to a negative result is bad, regardless of whether it was done accidentally or intentionally, from bad or good intentions. However, when there are obvious negative consequences of actions, they are able, to a certain extent, to take into account a person’s intentions, giving a moral assessment of his actions.
At primary school age, along with the developing sense of “I,” the child develops an idea of the “I” of other people, different from his own. During this period, it is important to teach the student to take into account the interests of others, their needs represented in experiences. It is very important to remember that at this age the child is especially susceptible to the influences of an adult. But for this it is necessary that the teacher himself be emotionally responsive to the child’s experiences and be able to come to his aid in time.
In the moral education of primary schoolchildren, it should be taken into account that children begin to actively and independently understand various life situations, but at the same time their assessment of events and actions is often situational in nature. The desire to figure things out for themselves is supported by the teacher; he helps students in choosing the correct moral assessment.
The basis of education, which determines moral development, is the formation of humanistic relations among schoolchildren, regardless of the content, methods, and forms of educational work. The educational process aimed at the development of all children must be structured in such a way as to ensure the optimal development of each child, based on his individuality.
The direct influence on the acquisition of moral values lies with the teacher. The result of this process depends on how the teacher presents it to the younger student.
The teacher’s word is a kind of instrument of influence on the development of the child’s personality. It is through conversations with a teacher, the spiritual development of a child, self-education, the joy of achieving goals, and noble work that open a person’s eyes to himself. If the child does not survive this, then genuine human sensitivity of perception will be alien to him.
The teacher encourages his students to be truthful and frank with themselves, to set a goal in life, to achieve which they must solve problems that comply with moral rules.
Moral education is the basis of all foundations; depending on what the teacher puts into the child’s soul at this age, it will depend on what he himself will build in the future, how he will build his relationships with others.
By getting involved in educational activities, primary schoolchildren learn to act purposefully both when completing educational tasks and when determining the methods of their behavior. Their actions become conscious.
V. A. Sukhomlinsky said: “At a young age, when the soul is very susceptible to emotional influences, we reveal to children universal moral standards, teach them the ABC of morality:
1. You live among people. Don’t forget that your every action, your every desire is reflected in the people around you. Know that there is a boundary between what you want and what you can. Check your actions by asking yourself: are you doing harm or inconvenience to people? Do everything so that people around you feel good.
2. You use goods created by other people. People make your childhood happy. Pay them for it in kind.
3. All the benefits and joys of life are created by labor. Without work you cannot live honestly.
4. Be kind and sensitive to people. Help the weak and defenseless. Help a friend in need. Don't hurt people. Respect and honor your mother and father - they gave you life, they raise you, they want you to become an honest person with a kind heart and a pure soul.
5. Be partial to evil. Fight against evil, deception, injustice. Be irreconcilable with those who seek to live at the expense of other people and cause harm to other people.
This is the ABC of moral culture, mastering which primary schoolchildren comprehend the essence of good and evil, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice.”
To form moral behavior, it is important to organize teaching as a collective activity, permeated with highly moral relations. The influence of the team on the individual is optimal when each child takes a place in the team that is adequate to his capabilities and becomes an irreplaceable person. This leads to the development of self-esteem, which makes the child, without external encouragement, act according to established moral norms and principles. Education in a team confronts a schoolchild, even a younger one, with the need for basic self-education and self-education, without which development, including moral development, is generally impossible.
The new content of primary education has opened up new opportunities for raising children, in which the content of education, teaching methods, the personality and knowledge of the teacher, who conveys his worldview, culture, and moral experience, are of decisive importance. All this constitutes a system of influences that guides the development of students and determines the characteristics of their formation.
The successful formation of habits of moral behavior is facilitated by:
- personal example of the teacher;
- full disclosure and understanding of the content of morality, significance in society and the individual himself;
— the use of various forms, methods and types of moral education;
Moral education is a continuous process, it begins from the birth of a person and continues throughout life, and is aimed at people mastering the rules and norms of behavior. At first glance, it may seem that it is impossible to identify any periods in this single continuous process. And yet it is possible and advisable. Pedagogy has recorded that at different age periods there are unequal opportunities for moral education. The moral development of a schoolchild occupies a leading place in the formation of a comprehensively developed personality, has a huge impact on mental development, and on labor training, and on physical development and on the education of aesthetic feelings and interests.
The formation of habits of moral behavior in younger schoolchildren should become one of the mandatory components of the educational process. For a child, school is an adaptive environment, a moral atmosphere that will determine his value orientations. Therefore, it is important that the moral educational system interacts with all components of school life: lessons, recess, extracurricular activities, and permeates the entire life of children with moral content.
That is why the school, when solving the problems of education, must rely on the rational and moral in a person, help every junior student determine the value foundations of his own life, and gain a sense of responsibility for preserving the moral foundations of society. This will be helped by moral behavior, organically woven into the educational process and constituting its integral part.
Morality past and present
These phenomena began to appear quite a long time ago. Each generation and community of people formed their own understanding of good and evil, their own ways of interpreting moral norms.
If we turn to traditional societies, we will see that there the moral character was considered as an unchangeable phenomenon, actually accepted in the absence of freedom of choice. A person of that time could not make a choice between accepting and not accepting the prevailing trends; he had to unconditionally follow them.
Nowadays, in contrast to legal norms, moral norms are more considered as recommendations for achieving happiness for oneself and the surrounding society. If earlier morality was defined as something given from above, prescribed by the gods themselves, today it is something similar to an unspoken social contract that is desirable to follow. But if you disobey, in fact, you can only be condemned, but not held to real responsibility.
You can accept moral laws (for your own good, because they are useful fertilizer for the sprout of a happy soul), or reject them, but this will remain on your conscience. In any case, the entire society revolves around moral standards, and without them its functioning would be incomplete.
Morality yesterday and today
The moral norms of society arose quite a long time ago. Each generation of humanity interpreted the understanding of good and evil in its own way. And also interpreted the norms of behavior in its own way. In a traditional society, we see the moral character unchanged. That is. A person of the past had no choice to accept or not accept these moral standards of humanity. He had to abide by them unconditionally.
Today, a person observes or considers ethical norms as recommendations for achieving good for himself and others. For the most part, modern society no longer observes moral laws, but legal ones.
Previously, morality was defined as a set of rules prescribed by God. However, today they are presented as a social contract, the terms of which are desirable to be observed. If a modern person violates moral standards, he will not be held accountable, but will only be condemned at a family dinner.
Adopting moral laws for oneself is everyone’s choice. But remember that they will be an excellent fertilizer for the sprout of a harmonious soul. You can reject them, then do not expect a human attitude towards your person. However, it so happens that humanity and all society revolves around morality and ethics. And without them, the modern generation of people would not have achieved humanity and virtue.
Diversity of moral standards
All moral norms and principles can be divided into two groups: requirements and permissions. Requirements include obligations and natural duties. Permissions can also be divided into indifferent and supererogatory.
There is social morality, which implies the most unified framework. There is an unspoken set of rules that operates in a particular country, company, organization or family. There are also attitudes according to which an individual person builds his line of behavior.
In order to understand moral culture not only in theory, but also in practice, you need to do the right things that others will accept and approve of.
Digital library
Humanities / Professional ethics / 7.1. MORAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE JUDICIARY
Reinforced in Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the principle of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, along with the legislative and executive powers, creates a normative and ideological basis for the formulation of moral requirements for representatives of the judiciary. The judiciary, acting in the sphere of social and interpersonal conflicts, forming a necessary component in the system of “checks” and “balances”, must meet high moral standards and meet the expectations of society.
The most important requirement for the activities of the judiciary is justice. Society and every person only needs a fair court, one that stands on the side of the truth, actively defends it and expresses it in its decisions.
In the criminal process, where we are talking about crime and punishment, about protecting the most important benefits of the individual from crime, justice takes on increased importance. An unfair trial can cause great harm to both an individual and an entire society. An unfair trial has always been condemned by society. Many negative phenomena were associated with his activities.
The judiciary is assessed as fair when it applies laws recognized by society as fair, resolves cases by establishing the truth, reliably ascertaining their factual circumstances, and makes decisions in accordance with the known facts and the requirements of the law. A fair trial is a court where the guilty are reasonably subjected to deserved punishment, and the innocent are necessarily acquitted.
The requirement for the judiciary to be fair applies not only to its decisions of a final nature, but also to all its activities from the moment the case comes before it. Justice is expressed both in ensuring the equality of all those affected by judicial activities, and in respecting the rights of persons participating in the case, and in the validity and legality of interim decisions of a “procedural” nature.
The judiciary must be equal for everyone. This moral requirement essentially expresses the egalitarian aspect of justice. However, the requirement to ensure equality in court is so important that it is specifically highlighted in law and appears in the moral consciousness of society.
The requirement of equality in the courts of Russia has been legislatively enshrined for a long time, proclaimed in the normative acts of Peter I, Catherine II, Alexander II, and in constitutions adopted at different times. However, ensuring real equality in court, equal real opportunities to defend their rights before the court for people occupying different social, official, and property positions remains a problem today.
The judiciary must be objective and impartial. The court is biased, biased and incapable of administering justice. It distorts the very idea of justice and can turn into an instrument of arbitrariness. Particularly dangerous is bias under the influence of any forces seeking to influence judges.
The impartiality of the judiciary, manifested in the absence of commitment to any of the parties, the ability to equally treat their claims and personality and act only in the interests of truth and justice on the basis of law and conscience, is a fundamental requirement of a moral and legal nature.
A judiciary that is unable or unwilling to act impartially does not deserve public confidence. Those who personify it, under these conditions, are deprived of authority and the moral right to judge others.
The judiciary must be competent. Competence can be characterized in one of its meanings as the high professionalism of judges, their deep knowledge of the laws, the requirements of professional ethics, strict adherence to them, the ability to correctly understand this or that, sometimes complex and confusing situation. It also includes extensive life experience, experience in applying laws, and legal activities even before assuming the duties of a judge. A judge must have a higher legal education. However, without constant improvement of their knowledge, improvement of legal and general culture, a judge will inevitably fall behind the requirements that a representative of the judiciary must meet and become incompetent.
Moral relations between judges arise in the process of judicial proceedings carried out by a collegial court. Trial is the decisive stage of the criminal process, where criminal justice is directly carried out. It is at this stage, in a public process, that a criminal case is examined with the participation of the parties, and decisions are made about the fate of the defendant, about the validity of the claims of the victim and the civil plaintiff for the restoration of violated rights.
For a long period, criminal proceedings were carried out on a collegial basis. No criminal case, from cases involving serious crimes to cases that could result in a minor fine or public censure, could be tried alone. The court of first instance acted with only one judge and two lay judges.
The differentiation of the judicial procedure in recent years has entailed a change in the composition of the court administering justice in criminal cases. Currently, the following may conduct a trial and pronounce a verdict:
· one professional judge;
· three professional judges;
· one professional judge and twelve jurors.
Criminal cases involving crimes for which the criminal law provides for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term of over fifteen years or a more severe penalty are considered by a panel of three judges.
In both collegial and individual proceedings in criminal cases, the judge presides over the court hearing ex-officio. And it is he who is obliged to ensure both strict compliance with the law and a highly moral course and result of the trial. Of course, some of the moral issues that have to be resolved in a collegiate court are different from those that face a single judge. At the same time, the management of the court hearing within the limits of the procedural procedure prescribed by law invariably remains with the presiding officer, who enters into moral relations with the parties, other persons participating in the case, and in a collegial hearing of the case, also with judges, lay assessors or jurors.
In relationships within the professional panel of judges, certain moral standards developed by many years of practice must be observed. The sentencing procedure regulated by law helps to ensure the equality of all judges.
The pronouncement of the verdict is preceded by a conference of judges, which takes place in the secrecy of the meeting. The presiding judge puts before the court the questions forming the essence of the verdict, the list and sequence of which are determined by law. Deviation from this requirement not only violates the legal procedure for making a decision, but can also give rise to moral conflicts and indicate disrespect of the presiding judge for the opinions of other judges.
All issues are resolved by a simple majority of votes. If the opinion of the presiding officer differs from the opinion of one or both judges during the discussion of a particular issue, the presiding officer, of course, is not deprived of the right to convince them of the correctness of his opinion. But this must be done in an extremely tactful manner, with arguments arising from the data of the trial. Any pressure on other judges is unacceptable.
None of the judges has the right to refrain from expressing their opinion when rendering a sentence. This norm of the law contains a moral meaning: the judge, called upon to decide the fate of the defendant, does not have the right to evade moral responsibility for the decision made, to “wash his hands.”
The presiding officer is the last to cast his vote. Compliance with this rule is intended to ensure the freedom of expression of all judges participating in the process. The presiding officer, having become convinced during the discussion of a particular issue that he will remain in the minority, does not have the right to avoid voting on it.
The moral duty of the judge presiding over the case is to create in the panel of judges an atmosphere of cooperation, mutual respect, principled and responsible attitude of each to their duties, when all issues are resolved on the basis of internal conviction with the equality of all three judges.
When considering a criminal case with the participation of jurors, the relationship between the judge presiding over the case and the jurors is built on the basis of the division of their functions while guaranteeing the freedom of expression of the jurors and the utmost objectivity of the presiding judge in the conduct of the trial.
The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation obliges the presiding officer to make a brief introductory speech, in which, in particular, he speaks about the tasks of the jurors and the conditions for their participation in the case. The presiding judge alone makes a decision on the release of jurors who have appeared in court from participation in the case, as well as on challenges and self-recusations. It is the duty of the presiding officer to ensure that the composition of the jury is such that it guarantees their complete impartiality and ability to reach an objective verdict. Reasoned and unmotivated challenges are satisfied so that the panel of jurors does not turn out to be biased. During the trial, it must be ensured that each juror can exercise the rights granted to him by law.
The presiding judge is obliged to ensure that jurors do not communicate with the parties and persons participating in the case outside of the established procedure, and to remove a juror from participation in the case in the case where there is reason to believe that this juror has lost objectivity as a result of unlawful influence exerted on him. impact.
During a judicial investigation, jurors have the right to ask questions to the defendant, victim, witnesses and experts through the presiding judge. The presiding judge shall not ask jurors such questions as are not relevant to the case, are leading or offensive.
When posing questions to jurors, the final wording of the questions in the question sheet belongs to the presiding judge.
This requires special attention and responsibility, since inaccurate formulation of questions or their bias may lead to an unfair verdict by the jury.
The presiding officer's parting words must be objective. The law prohibits the presiding officer from expressing his opinion in any form on issues put before the jury. The moral problem here is that the presiding officer pronounces a parting word in conditions when he himself has already formed a conviction on the issue of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. While informing the jurors of the information necessary to make the right decision, including recalling the evidence examined in court, the judge, however, does not have the right to even indirectly guide them to any conclusions.
In a jury trial, the presiding judge is not exempt from moral responsibility for the fairness of the decision on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. He is obliged to dismiss the jury, recognizing that they returned a guilty verdict against an innocent person. The judge also has the right to pronounce an acquittal, recognizing that the defendant’s act does not constitute a crime, although the jury returned a guilty verdict.
When considering a case alone, the judge does not have the opportunity to use the opinions and advice of other judges when making decisions during the trial and when rendering a sentence.
All moral responsibility for the objective conduct of the trial and the fairness of the verdict lies with him alone.
The moral relations of the court and the participants in the trial, based on the law, determine the behavior of the judges, and especially the presiding judge in the case, in communicating with the defendant, his defense attorney, the victim, the prosecutor and other persons.
The presiding judge and other judges are required to conduct the entire trial and resolve the criminal case absolutely impartially. Judges' prejudice against the defendant or victim, or other persons involved in the case, is a sure path to a miscarriage of justice. It is illegal and immoral, since the judge deviates from the requirements of impartiality and objectivity imposed on him by society.
The position of the judge is such that before the verdict is passed, he does not have the right to express his opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Otherwise, he is subject to justified challenge. However, it is no less important that the judge not only does not “publish” in one form or another his attitude to the case, his position regarding the resolution of issues that form the essence of the verdict, but is also internally free from prejudice, ready to perceive everything that happens in court without preferences, objectively.
The judge presiding over the case, as well as other judges, must be equally attentive to the petitions and statements of all participants in the trial, listen to them and raise the questions raised for resolution by the court.
Judges should not show their sympathy or antipathy towards any of the participants in the trial, for example, be emphatically attentive to the victim and ignore the appeals or statements of the defendant, demonstrating distrust of him. In court, it is necessary to create an atmosphere of procedural equality of the parties, obvious to all those present.
In the preparatory part of the court session, the court takes measures to ensure the impartial composition of the court and participants in the trial, eliminating those who are subject to challenge. Here, the rights of the defendant, the victim, and other persons are explained, which cannot be formal.
It is necessary that everyone truly understands what opportunities the law provides him with to protect his interests. When allowing motions submitted before the start of a judicial investigation, the court must be ready to satisfy them if they are stated to clarify circumstances essential to the case.
During the judicial investigation, the actions and behavior of the presiding judge, other judges and people's assessors are subordinated to one goal - to establish the truth in the case through a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the evidence. At the same time, both in content and in form, the court’s actions must comply with procedural and moral standards.
After the indictment is announced, the presiding officer asks the defendant whether he understands the charge, explains to the defendant, if necessary, the essence of the charge and asks whether he pleads guilty. At the request of the defendant, the presiding officer provides him with the opportunity to motivate his answer.
The judge’s duty is to make sure that the defendant really understands what he is accused of, and his answer to admit or not admit his guilt is based on a correct understanding of the essence of the charge, and that the defendant’s legal ignorance did not determine his erroneous answer.
A serious drawback in conducting a judicial investigation is an uncritical approach to the materials available in the case, collected during the inquiry or preliminary investigation. It indicates a formal attitude towards the performance of the duties of a judge and can lead to the most serious mistakes - the conviction of the innocent, as well as unfairly severe punishment of the truly guilty. Therefore, the actions of the presiding officer during a judicial investigation should be based on the need to ensure maximum objectivity in the investigation of the circumstances of the case, with equality of the parties to the prosecution and defense.
The presiding judge should not insist on obtaining evidence from the defendant consistent with the prosecution's version of the indictment. If the defendant changes his position in relation to the accusation, compared to the position at the preliminary investigation (instead of admitting guilt - denial), and the associated change in testimony, the duty of the court is to find out the real reasons for this and carefully check which testimony is consistent reality. Therefore, judges should not convince the defendant of the advisability of admitting his guilt. If the defendant is not guilty and his testimony at the preliminary investigation does not correspond to the actual state of affairs, but was the result of an error, delusion or dishonest conduct of the investigation, then his testimony at the trial must be used to establish the truth and rehabilitate the defendant. If he previously gave truthful testimony, but in court refused it and began to report false information, then the duty of the court is to carefully listen to the defendant’s version, to understand the truth or falsity of certain testimony, and to collect evidence during the judicial investigation that provides grounds for an unmistakable conclusion.
If the defendant changes his position in relation to the accusation, compared to the position at the preliminary investigation, he must be given the opportunity to explain the reasons for this and give detailed testimony about the accusation and the circumstances of the case known to him in the form that the defendant himself wishes to do.
Finding out the reason for the defendant's change of position and reading out the testimony given by him during the preliminary investigation should be done only after the defendant has been given the opportunity to fully present his version of the circumstances of the case.
You cannot persuade the defendant to return to his previous testimony, remind him in this regard of the importance of sincere repentance for mitigating responsibility, etc.
When interrogating the defendant and during the judicial investigation in general, it is necessary to strive to awaken the conscience of the defendant, which can lead to his sincere repentance.
In an adversarial process, convicting the defendant of a crime is the responsibility of the prosecutor, not the judge or the court. A judge who sets “traps” for the defendant behaves biased, biased, and immoral.
The presiding officer is obliged to equally carefully listen to the testimony of all interrogated persons, regardless of whether he considers this testimony to be true or false, corresponding to reality or the result of a mistake. In this case, each interrogated person should be given the opportunity to freely present his testimony, and questions are asked, as a rule, at the end of such a story.
All leading questions posed by any of the participants in the trial are subject to unconditional and immediate rejection by the presiding judge. The judges themselves, especially, do not have the right to pose leading questions in any form.
Interrogation in court in a public trial always causes an aggravation of the feelings and emotions of the interrogated person. Therefore, special tact and extreme attentiveness to the state of the person being interrogated are required from the presiding officer.
During a judicial investigation in an open court session, the disclosure of information about the intimate aspects of the lives of certain persons, as well as the disclosure of personal correspondence, must be excluded.
Finding out information about the identity and occupation of witnesses and victims, the nature of their relationships with the defendant and other persons is carried out only within certain limits. The private life of citizens is protected by law. The court can intervene in this area only when it is really necessary to clarify the essential circumstances of the case. This requirement, of course, also applies to participants in legal proceedings.
During the court arguments and the last word of the defendant, the presiding judge and the jurors will carefully listen to everything that the participants in the trial say. Using his leadership position, the presiding officer suppresses attempts to violate ethical standards in communication, in a dispute between participants in judicial debates, rudeness or tactlessness towards someone. In this part of the trial, you cannot be distracted from what is happening in court, take notes on other issues, leaf through the case materials, etc.
During the entire trial, the presiding officer is obliged to show tact, restraint, be extremely collected, and follow the rules of judicial ethics in an exemplary manner. At the same time, he must take measures to ensure that, in the process of communication with each other, all participants in the trial comply with ethical standards and rules of conduct in a government institution. Rudeness, tactlessness, and attempts to humiliate someone’s dignity must be stopped immediately.
The presiding officer must behave formally and at the same time politely, and be attentive to everyone with whom he comes into contact. The behavior of a judge should not be dry, callous, or frivolous or playful. Every crime that the court examines has brought grief and moral shock to someone. The judge will probably be remembered for the rest of his life by the defendant, his relatives, the victim and other participants in the process, and his behavior will be carefully observed by those in the courtroom. In their eyes, he is a judge from whom they expect an intelligent and conscientious investigation of the case and its fair resolution. And the judge is obliged to justify these hopes with all his behavior.
A prosecutor supporting the state prosecution participates in the court hearing. In this activity, he is guided by the law and moral standards that determine the essence of his activity in court.
The ethical aspects of maintaining public prosecution will be discussed below. Here we should recall only the general principles of the activities of the public prosecutor:
· full assistance to the court in a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case;
· intolerance to violations of legal and moral norms;
· impeccable sense of justice;
· integrity, persistence in exposing the culprit with maximum objectivity;
· the obligation to renounce the accusation if it is not confirmed during the judicial investigation;
· emphasized respect for the court as a judicial body and respect for the dignity of all persons involved in the case;
· correctness, sense of tact, exemplary compliance with the rules of conduct in court.
When pronouncing a sentence, the judge, whether he alone decides the case or is part of the panel, bears full responsibility for the fate of the defendant, for an error-free, fair resolution of the case. Here the leading role is played by the conscience of the judge, evaluating the evidence according to his inner conviction, making a decision on conviction or acquittal, on punishment if the defendant is found guilty. This activity should accumulate the best moral qualities of the judge, which have already been mentioned: understanding of the social significance of the decision being made and an increased sense of personal duty, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, honesty, humanity, integrity, etc.
A judge does not have the right to avoid making a decision on a case either by abstaining from voting or by sending the case for additional investigation when it obviously does not bring anything new. The law gave him the right and at the same time placed on him the burden of the final decision. And it will be fair only when all judges, with a full sense of responsibility, fulfill their professional moral duty.
Perhaps the importance of morality is exaggerated?
It may seem that following moral standards shackles a person into narrow boundaries. However, we do not consider ourselves prisoners when using the instructions for this or that radio device. Moral norms are the same scheme that helps us build our lives correctly, without coming into conflict with our conscience.
Moral norms for the most part coincide with legal norms. But there are situations when morality and law come into conflict. Let us examine this issue using the example of the “thou shalt not steal” norm. Let's try to ask the question “Why does this or that person never steal?” In the case where the basis is fear of judgment, the motive cannot be called moral. But if a person does not steal, based on the belief that theft is bad, then the act is based on moral values. But in life it happens that someone considers it his moral duty to do something that, from a legal point of view, is a violation of the law (for example, a person decides to steal medicine in order to save the life of a loved one).
The Importance of Moral Education
You should not expect that the moral environment will develop on its own. It also needs to be built, learned, that is, worked on oneself. It’s just that, along with mathematics and the Russian language, schoolchildren do not study the laws of morality. And, getting into society, people can sometimes feel as helpless and defenseless as if they went to the blackboard in 1st grade and were forced to solve an equation that they had never seen before.
So all the words that good behavior fetters, enslaves and makes a slave out of a person are true only if moral standards are perverted and adjusted to the material interests of one or another group of people.
Moral requirements for the activities of the judiciary
The establishment in Article 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of the principle of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary creates the basis for the formation of moral requirements for the judiciary. The most important requirement for the activities of the judiciary is justice. In criminal proceedings, where crime and punishment are at stake, justice takes on increased importance. An unfair trial can cause enormous harm to both an individual and the entire society. As we know from history, courts were often used as a weapon for illegal reprisals against innocent people. Thus, in the USSR, during the period of mass repressions, hundreds of thousands of people, who were called “enemies of the people,” were killed by court verdicts. The courts served as a legal cover for injustice perpetrated by government authorities. The same judges who tried to resist the violations of the laws themselves became victims of repression. Thus, almost the entire first composition of the Supreme Court of the USSR was destroyed. Subsequently, the scale of repression exceeded the capacity of the courts, and a huge number of accused were convicted by extrajudicial bodies - “troikas” and “special meetings”. The court was finally no longer needed by the totalitarian and unjust state to fight its “enemies.”
In a democratic, rule-of-law state, the judiciary is assessed as fair when it applies laws that comply with the Constitution and makes decisions in accordance with known facts and the requirements of the law. A fair trial is a court where the guilty bear a fair punishment, and the innocent are necessarily acquitted.
The requirement for the judiciary to be fair applies not only to its final decisions, but also to all its activities from the moment the case comes to court. Justice is expressed in ensuring the equality of all those affected by judicial activities, and in respecting the rights of persons participating in the case, and the validity of “interim” decisions, including those taken in pre-trial proceedings in accordance with Art. 29 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
The judiciary must be equal for everyone. This moral requirement, in essence, expresses the egalitarian aspect of justice. However, the requirement to ensure equality in court is so important that it is specifically highlighted by the legislator and appears in the moral consciousness of society. The requirement of equality in court in Russia has been legislated for a long time; it was proclaimed in the normative acts of Peter I, Catherine II, Alexander II and in the constitutions adopted in the RSFSR, the USSR and the Russian Federation. However, ensuring real equality in court, equal real opportunities to defend their rights before the court for people occupying different social, official, and property positions remains a problem today.
The judiciary must be objective and impartial. The court is biased, biased and incapable of administering justice. It distorts the very idea of justice and can turn into an instrument of arbitrariness. Particularly dangerous is bias under the influence of any forces seeking to influence judges.
The impartiality of the judiciary, manifested in the absence of commitment to any of the parties, in the ability to equally treat their claims and personality and act only in the interests of justice on the basis of the law and conscience, is a fundamental requirement of a moral and legal nature.
The judiciary must be competent. Competence can be characterized in one of its meanings as the high professionalism of a judge, his deep knowledge of the laws, the requirements of professional ethics, and the ability to correctly understand a given situation. It also includes life experience, experience in applying laws, and legal activity even before assuming the duties of a judge. A judge must constantly work on himself and improve his skills. This is now reflected in Article 20-1 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the status of judges in the Russian Federation”, introduced by the Federal Law of December 15, 2001. No. 169-FZ. This article is called “Maintaining the level of qualifications necessary to exercise the powers of a judge” and contains a provision that a judge has the right to improve his qualifications once every three years with the maintenance of a salary for the period of training.
The assessment of the professionalism of a judge is carried out by the qualification board of judges when deciding on qualification certification, assignment of a qualification class, nomination for appointment without a term limit, as well as appointment to the position of chairman or deputy chairman of the court.
Introduced by the Federal Law of December 15, 2001. No. 169-FZ amendments to the Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” are aimed at ensuring moral requirements for the bearers of judicial power. Thus, it is stipulated that the All-Russian Congress of Judges approves a code of judicial ethics. For violation of the norms of the Law “On the Status of Judges” and the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge may be subject to disciplinary action in the form of a warning or early termination of the powers of judges by the Qualification Board of Judges. Since qualification boards of judges are bodies of the judicial community vested with broad powers to make legal and moral assessments of the actions of a judge (they are given the right to consent to the initiation of a criminal case against a judge, to terminate the powers of a judge early), they should not be bodies of “mutual responsibility”. Therefore, the Federal Law of March 14, 2002. No. 30-FZ “On Bodies of the Judicial Community” provides that the qualification boards of judges will include not only judges of various courts (according to the established standard), but also representatives of the public and representatives of the President of the Russian Federation.
The requirements for the objectivity and impartiality of a judge acquired particular importance after July 1, 2002, when the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law of May 29, 2002 came into force. No. 58 of the Federal Law “On Amendments and Additions to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation” allows the same judge to make any decisions in pre-trial proceedings (including decisions to arrest and extend the period of detention), and subsequently consider the same criminal case according to essence. This means that the judge must objectively evaluate not only someone else’s actions and decisions, but also his own, taken in pre-trial proceedings.
Social hunger strike
Nowadays, finding the right path in life worries a person much less than social discomfort. Parents care more about their child becoming a good specialist than about being a happy person in the future. It becomes more important to enter into a successful marriage than to know true love. Giving birth to a child is more important than realizing the true need for motherhood.
Moral demands for the most part appeal not to external expediency (if you do this, then you will succeed), but to moral duty (you need to act in a certain way, since this is dictated by duty), thus having the form of an imperative, considered as direct and unconditional command.
Moral standards and human behavior are closely interrelated. However, when thinking about moral laws, a person should not identify them with regulations, but fulfill them, guided by his own desire.
