Discretionary powers in light of the dynamic development of civil society and modern information technologies

The article examines discretionary powers in the context of current global socio-political transformations, in particular the dynamic development of civil society and modern information technologies. The relevance of such research lies in the fact that discretion is almost the only compensating law enforcement tool for bridging the gap between the dynamism of social and legal relations and the constancy of the legal norm regulating these relations, and therefore, in today’s conditions, when, as a rule, the former cannot always foresee and regulate all possible variations of the latter, research on discretion has considerable weight and relevance. Meanwhile, it has been stated that the scientific work on the topic cannot be called sufficiently developed. In order to minimize the identified gap in scientific research on the topic, the author set the goal of investigating discretionary powers in the context of the dynamic development of civil society and modern information technologies. At the same time, such research was conducted in a philosophical and legal context, for a more conceptual understanding of the stated issues and ways to solve them. Using the methods of analysis, synthesis, generalization, induction, deduction, and analogy, based on a sociodynamic approach, it has been clarified and established that the role of public opinion has a significant impact on the formation of the judgment of law enforcement entities, especially in the era of rapid development of information technologies, when such influence can be used to achieve the desired results. Therefore, after conducting a brief analysis of the concept of public opinion and outlining its significance in the formation of the legal consciousness of law enforcement entities, we managed to come to the conclusion that the exercise of discretionary powers in modern conditions of communication technologies, the influence of media and public opinion on the course and results of procedural decision-making, should be accompanied by a clear and convincing justification of these decisions, which would not give reason to doubt their legality even to someone who is not satisfied with this decision. No less important in this process is the openness of the dialogue between law enforcement agencies and the public, obtained at the cost of the justification and clarity of discretionary decisions and open communication between law enforcement agencies and the public. However, it is important that this communication takes place within the paradigm of maintaining a balance of values, human rights, and freedom of speech.