Ar pakartotinio bausmės vykdymo atidėjimo taikymo procese sukuriamos prielaidos specialiosios ir bendrosios prevencijos užtikrinimui?
Einikė, Ugnė |
Šio darbo tikslas – nustatyti, ar pakartotinio bausmės vykdymo atidėjimo taikymo procese sukuriamos prielaidos specialiosios ir bendrosios prevencijos užtikrinimui. Darbe analizuojami baudžiamojo įstatymo nuostatai, teismų praktika bei mokslinės literatūros išvados, siekiant atsakyti į klausimą, ar šis institutas veiksmingai užtikrina baudžiamosios teisės tikslus. Baudžiamajame įstatyme nėra nustatyta, kad bausmės vykdymo atidėjimas gali būti taikomas tik vieną kartą, tačiau teismų praktika dažnai šią nuostatą riboja, remdamasi išimtinumo principu. Vertinant bylos aplinkybes, teismai privalo atsižvelgti į kaltininko asmenybę, padarytų veikų pobūdį ir laikytis humaniškumo bei teisingumo principų pusiausvyros, kad būtų užtikrinti prevencijos tikslai. Darbo metu buvo išskirti specialiosios ir bendrosios prevencijos tikslai, analizuotas humaniškumo ir teisingumo principų derinimas bausmės vykdymo atidėjimo taikymo metu, bei atskleistas šio instituto santykis su prevencijos reikalavimais. Analizė parodė, kad teismų praktikoje nėra nuoseklumo sprendžiant dėl pakartotinio bausmės vykdymo atidėjimo, o tai gali apsunkinti prevencijos tikslų pasiekimą. Darbe remtasi analizės, aprašomuoju, kritikos, lyginamuoju, apibendrinamuoju ir loginiu metodais. Darbo naujumą pagrindžia tai, kad mokslininkai iki šiol nėra atlikę panašaus pobūdžio praktinio tyrimo, o šiame darbe nagrinėjama naujausia teismų praktika, susijusi su bausmės vykdymo atidėjimu. Atlikta analizė leidžia daryti išvadą, kad šio instituto taikymo procese gali nebūti sukuriamos pakankamos prielaidos specialiajai ir bendrajai prevencijai užtikrinti, jei nėra tinkamai įvertinamos visos reikšmingos aplinkybės.
The purpose of this research is to determine whether the application of repeated suspension of sentence execution creates conditions for ensuring specific and general prevention. The research analyses provisions of the criminal law, judicial practice, and conclusions of scientific literature to answer the question of whether this institution effectively ensures the objectives of criminal law. Additionally, research examines how the application of this institution contributes to the resocialization and reintegration of convicts into society and ensures the implementation of the principle of justice. To provide a more comprehensive evaluation, attention is drawn to the most common gaps in judicial practice and their impact on achieving preventive goals. The criminal law does not stipulate that the suspension of sentence execution can be applied only once; however, judicial practice often limits this provision based on the principle of exceptionality. When 4 assessing the circumstances of a case, courts must consider the offender's personality, the nature of the committed offenses, and strive for a balance between the principles of humanity and justice to ensure the objectives of prevention. Additionally, courts must evaluate the offender's efforts to change their behaviour, cooperation with the probation service, and ability to reintegrate into society. These factors are crucial in determining whether repeated suspension of sentence execution will contribute to achieving preventive goals or, conversely, create conditions for further recurrence of violations. The study identifies the goals of special and general prevention, examines the integration of humanity and justice principles in the application of sentence suspension, and explores the relationship of this institution with the requirements of prevention. The analysis revealed that court practices lack consistency in deciding on repeated sentence suspension, which may hinder the achievement of prevention goals. The achievement of probation goals is hindered by violations of court-imposed obligations during the sentence suspension period, prompting probation services to petition the court to revoke the suspension. Violations committed by convicted individuals raise doubts about the effectiveness of prevention measures, particularly when the court has shown leniency by granting a sentence suspension and setting obligations that the convicted individual is expected to follow, yet they continue to disregard them. The study employs analytical, descriptive, critical, comparative, generalizing, and logical methods. Its novelty lies in the fact that researchers have not conducted a similar practical study before. This research focuses on the latest court practices related to repeated sentence suspension. While doing the research, the cases of Kaunas District Court were analysed in which it was decided to apply or not to apply the suspension of the execution of the sentence. The analysis consisted of 50 cases. First time suspended sentence was used 20 times, which makes 40 percent of the cases analysed. The suspension of sentence was not applied in 23 cases, which adds up to 46 percent of analysed cases. The re-suspension of the execution was applied in 7 cases, which adds up to 14 percent of cases analysed. The research highlights the main aspects of what the courts assess when applying or not applying for a suspended sentence. Usually, the suspension of the execution of a sentence does not apply to person who has been convicted many times, taking into the account that the more severe penalties were applied in the past, the person not changing his criminal behaviour and continues to violate the law, the application of a suspended sentence and the objectives of the sentence will not be achieved in such a way to ensure either special or general preventions. The analysis of these cases leads to the conclusion that special and general prevention can be ensured by the courts’ thorough assessment of the defendant. Although, the research also analysed the cases where the probation service took to court person on probation because he did not comply with probation conditions or failed to fulfil court-ordered obligations. The most commonly violated court-imposed obligations are failure to be at home at the designated time and non-compliance with the obligation to refrain from using psychoactive substances. In 5 total there were analysed 20 submissions, of which court satisfied 5 which led to cancellation of suspended sentence and 15 were rejected. Thus, in many cases, non-compliance with the conditions of probation does not entail legal consequences, since in many cases the court rejects the submissions of probation service. The analysis allows the conclusion that the application process of this institution may fail to create sufficient conditions for ensuring special and general prevention if all significant circumstances are not properly evaluated. General prevention has a deterrent effect on all citizens, spreading awareness through media, enabling society to understand the consequences of breaking the law. Special prevention focuses on the convicted individual, emphasizing their rehabilitation, resocialization, and treatment. The success of special prevention depends solely on the convicted person's behaviour during probation, their understanding of their actions, and their willingness to change.