Annotation

The article analyzes the anthropological, criminological, criminal law, and criminal procedure aspects of the consequences of an ordinary conflict in a female collective. Once upon a time, such quarrels were successfully resolved primarily through mediation, if not by the party committee, trade union committee, or comrades’ court, then according to the rules of proceedings in cases of private prosecution. Let us not hide the obvious: in private prosecution cases, the basic driver of all processes was the active judge, who simultaneously worked for both sides of the prosecution and both sides of the defense. The elevation of the principle of adversariness (Part 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) to an absolute has radically changed the approach to solving what was previously considered a simple problem, since it turned out that without “shadow comprehensive assistance” from the judge, the parties are unable to properly engage in adversarial proceedings. Moreover, the involvement of lawyers by the parties to resolve conflicts, oddly enough, only exacerbates the situation, since the latter see in their clients, first and foremost, a source of income. As for state bodies, they are nothing other than "a bull in a china shop" when it comes to resolving private domestic conflicts. As a result, in practice, an ordinary conflict is not resolved, but on the contrary, only intensifies and worsens.