Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Type of publication: Straipsnis / Article
Author(s): Prapiestis, Jonas;Prapiestis, Darius
Title: Kaltės institutas baudžiamojoje kasacijoje
Other Title: Rules and principles regarding the establishment of guilt in criminal cassation
Is part of: Teisės apžvalga, 2016, nr. 2(14), p. 48-61
Date: 2016
Keywords: Baudžiamoji teisė;Kaltės institutas;Kaltės rūšys;Baudžiamoji kasacija;Criminal law;Institute of guilt;Degrees of guilt;Criminal cases in Court of Cassation
Abstract: Straipsnyje analizuojama kaltės samprata ir jos reikšmė, kaltės instituto probleminiai aspektai bei kaltės rūšių atribojimo Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo jurisprudencijoje klausimai.
The article introduces analysis of subjective grounds for guilt – a necessary condition for criminal liability of every person. Guilt is defined as a condemned and punishable by the state culprit’s integral relation (either intentional or through negligence) with the crime or criminal misdemeanour. The article reveals guilt’s connection with general attributes of a criminal act (age, capacity) and puts forward a justification for a state’s right and obligation both in legal and social sense to punish culprits. The article is based on research of application of guilt concept in case-law since the Lithuanian Criminal Code came into force (May 1, 2013). It shows that occasional defects and mistakes occur as unclear, ambiguous conclusions about forms, contents of guilt or as inconsistent characterizations of guilt forms, separate features of its sorts. Also, consequences caused by these mistakes for participants in the criminal process are evaluated. The article also explores provisions of criminal law which determine the concept of guilt. Analysis led to conclusion that reckless guilt in the Criminal Code is defined insufficiently, because it does not provide any description of intellectual reckless guilt (criminal negligence) or is described only partially (criminally false assumption). In justification of negligent guilt in culprit’s criminal act, objective and subjective criteria should be used for both forms of negligence. Also, differences and similarities of criminal negligence and criminally false assumption are presented.
Appears in Collections:Teisės apžvalga / Law Review 2016, nr. 2(14)

Files in This Item:
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats

CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

checked on Jun 6, 2021


checked on Jun 6, 2021

Google ScholarTM


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.