DETENTION AND HOME ARREST: THEORETICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION

The article presents the results of a comparative legal analysis of the use of preventive measures in the form of detention and home arrest. Both of these measures are forms of isolation from society of suspects, accused persons, and defendants in criminal proceedings. Thus, detention as a preventive measure, as a general rule, is applied by a court decision against a suspect or accused of committing crimes for which the criminal law provides for a penalty of imprisonment for a term of more than three years, if it is impossible to apply another, more lenient, preventive measure. When choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention, the judge's decision must specify the specific, factual circumstances on the basis of which the judge made such a decision. Such circumstances may not be data that has not been verified during the court session, in particular the results of operational search activities, submitted in violation of the requirements of Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. At the same time, house arrest, along with detention, is classified as a preventive measure that restricts freedom. These measures are identical in terms of preventing consequences. However, this circumstance is often not taken into account by the court. This conclusion is supported by statistics showing a low level of use of home arrest. The article examines the evolution of the legal regulation and application of detention and home arrest. The conclusion is made about the historical continuity of both positive and negative experiences. In particular, the use of detention as a means of influence to obtain "necessary evidence", a punitive measure, which does not follow from its essence, is traced. Unfortunately, this practice still exists today, as confirmed by the examples given in the article. The article examines the conceptual aspects of the use of detention and home arrest as an alternative to isolation from society. Proposals for amendments to the criminal procedure legislation aimed at minimizing abuses in the appointment and execution of procedural preventive measures in the form of detention and home arrest are formulated and justified.