Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/32519
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPrapiestis, Jonas
dc.contributor.authorPrapiestis, Darius
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-04T09:06:19Z
dc.date.available2016-11-04T09:06:19Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn2029-4239
dc.identifier.urihttps://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/32519
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.14.3
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/32519-
dc.description.abstractStraipsnyje analizuojama kaltės samprata ir jos reikšmė, kaltės instituto probleminiai aspektai bei kaltės rūšių atribojimo Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo jurisprudencijoje klausimai.lt_LT
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.language.isolten_US
dc.relation.ispartofTeisės apžvalga, 2016, nr. 2(14), p. 48-61lt_LT
dc.rightsSutarties data 2011-04-12, nr. A1225, laisvai prieinamas internetelt_LT
dc.subjectBaudžiamoji teisėlt_LT
dc.subjectKaltės institutaslt_LT
dc.subjectKaltės rūšyslt_LT
dc.subjectBaudžiamoji kasacijalt_LT
dc.subjectCriminal lawen_US
dc.subjectInstitute of guilten_US
dc.subjectDegrees of guilten_US
dc.subjectCriminal cases in Court of Cassationen_US
dc.titleKaltės institutas baudžiamojoje kasacijojelt_LT
dc.title.alternativeRules and principles regarding the establishment of guilt in criminal cassationen_US
dc.typeStraipsnis / Article
dc.subject.udc34 Teisė / Law
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
Appears in Collections:Teisės apžvalga / Law Review 2016, nr. 2(14)
Files in This Item:
Show simple item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats


CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

342
checked on Dec 5, 2021

Download(s)

336
checked on Dec 5, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


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