Improving the activities of the prosecutor’s office in the context of implementing the legislation on countering extremism

Introduction. The growth of extremist crimes makes it necessaryto increase the effectiveness of the activities of law enforcement agencies to counter this destructive phenomenon, where the leading role is assigned by the legislator to the prosecutor’s office. It is important to improve the mechanisms of interaction and consolidation of the subjects of countering extremism (for example, to modernize the plans of coordination activities of law enforcement agencies, to focus more attention on the problems of the legal regulation of crimes in the virtual space, and to implement the best foreign experience of the legislative regulation of coordination activities). The purpose of the study is to develop conceptual proposals to improve the activities of the prosecutor’s office in countering extremism. Research objectives. To characterize the current problems of countering extremist crimes; to assess the current problemsof the prosecutor’s office’s activities to prevent extremist crimes; to identify the problems related to the coordination of law enforcement activities to counter extremism; and to identifypromising areas for improving domestic legislation in the issues under consideration. As the methodological framework for the research, the general scientific methods were used: analysis, abstraction, andthe dialectical method, aswell as a set of specific scientificmethods: institutional, formallegal, comparative legal, interpretative, etc. Results. The specific features of the prosecutor’s supervision over implementing legislation on counteringextremist activityare described; the counter-arguments arising within the framework ofcounteringextremism areidentified and characterized; theproblematic aspects of the use bytheprosecutor’s office of some means ofprosecutorial response in the processofimplementing the legislation on counteringextremism (presentation, warning) areinvestigated; and the mechanisms for coordinating the activities of the prosecutor’s office and other law enforcement agencies to counter extremism are described. Conclusions. The effectiveness of the activities of the prosecutor’s office in countering extremism depends on a set of the following factors: improving the mechanisms of interaction among all subjects of countering this category of crimes; the professional development of prosecutors within this activity; not formal but careful supervision of the activities of supervised and other subjects of prevention in this area; granting prosecutors additional powers tocombat extremism; and the modernization of the legislative framework regulating the problematic aspects of the prevention of extremist activity.