{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011132940406024885, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013097576948264572, 'mean_word_length': 5.063492063492063, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problems of Implementing the Criminal Procedure Policy in Crime Prevention

The authors use a communicative approach to the theory of law in their analysis of criminal procedure policy and its role in crime prevention. This approach allowed them to determine the content of criminal procedure work that lies outside the scope of criminal law. This content is its ability to regulate social conflicts of criminal law character. Within this framework, the criminal procedure is viewed as a platform for resolving social conflicts, the sides use it to resolve a conflict between them in socially acceptable ways in the process of communication. The involvement of the aggrieved party in the process of communication in connection with the crime intensifies the correctional impact of the criminal process and its significance for crime prevention. The authors suggest using simplified measures of criminal procedure law for reforming this process and basing it on the procedure of terminating a criminal case with the imposition of a court fine as a measure of criminal law influence. They suggest using the same approach when terminating a criminal case due to the reconciliation of the sides, with one exception: during the reconciliation of the sides, only grounds provided for in Art. 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be proven. If they are established, the investigator is obliged to petition to the court and the court, having established their validity, should decide to terminate the criminal case.