Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34810
Type of publication: master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law (S001)
Author(s): Pareigytė, Greta
Supervisor: Šibkovas, Olegas
Title: Ar laisvės apribojimo bausmės paskirtis užtikrina bausmės tikslų įgyvendinimą?
Other Title: Does the punishement of the restriction of liberty ensures the intents of theimplemented punishment?
Extent: 51 p.
Date: 1-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Bausmės paskirtis;Laisvės apribojimo bausmė;Laisvės apribojimo bausmės įpareigojimai ir draudimai;Vengimas vykdyti bausmę;Probacijos įgaliojimai;Purpose of punishment;Punishment of restriction of liberty;Punishment of restriction of liberty obligations and prohibitions;Avoidance to carry out the sentence;Probation authority
Abstract: Magistro baigiamajame darbe buvo siekiama nustatyti, ar taikant su laisvės atėmimu nesusijusią – laisvės apribojimo bausmę, ji – įgali ir pakankama priemonė pasiekti bendruosius bausmės tikslus įvairių nusikalstamų veikų atvejais, ar ši bausmė yra efektyvi ir pagrįstai egzistuoja Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse. Nagrinėjama individualizavimo, teisingumo principo reikšmė, skiriant bausmę. Analizuojamos teisės aktų nuostatos, reglamentuojančios bausmės tikslus, laisvės apribojimo bausmės skyrimą ir vykdymą, probacijos tarnybų paskirtį taikant šią bausmę. Tiriami praktiniai atvejai, kuomet skiriama laisvės apriojimo bausmė ir kaip užtikrinamas teisingumas – bausmės paskirties įgyvendinimas, taip pat situacijos, kuomet ji keičiama kita bausme (nepavykus įgyvendinti bausmės tikslų), analizuojama statistika ir šios bausmės vieta valstybės teisinėje sistemoje. Europos bausmių politika eina kryptinga linkme mažinant realios laisvės atėmimo bausmės skyrimą nuteistiesiems, taip mažindami kalinių skaičių ir siekdami efektyvios nuteistųjų socializacijos, integracijos į visuomenę, kurie pripažįsta teisinių normų egzistavimą, vykdant bausmę priimtinoje aplinkoje su tam tikrais suvaržymais. Įpareigojimai padeda taisyti elgesį ir požiūrį, daugeliu atveju – įgalūs užtikrinti, bausmės tikslų įgyvendinimą. Buvo analizuojama, kokiu būdu siekiama kiekvieną bendrąjį bausmės tikslą įgyvendinti taikant šią bausmę. Siekiant užtikrinti proporcingumo ir teisingumo principus, dažniausiai asmenims teisiamiems pirmą kartą už ne tokius sunkius nusikaltimus, teismas pagrįstai renkasi laisvės apribojimo bausmės rūšį, taikydamas įpareigojimus ir draudimus, kurie nukreipti į konkretaus asmens elgesio koregavimą. Dažnai susiduriama su problema, kad dalies nuteistųjų ši bausmė neveikia ir tenka keisti griežtesne bausme – areštu, kuri pati kaip bausmė – trumpalaikis sulaikymas nėra veiksminga. Kai bausmė netinkamai vykdoma ar nevykdoma – teismai keisdami bausmės rūšį turi teisę laisvai interpretuoti sąvoką „vengimas“ atlikti bausmę, todėl vertėtų nustatyti labiau apibrėžtus kriterijus, kada probacijos tarnyboms kreiptis dėl bausmės keitimo, nes šiuo metu daugelis teikimų lieka netenkinti. Išanalizavus mokslinę literatūrą, užsienio bei Lietuvos teisės aktus, Lietuvos teismų praktiką, daroma išvada, kad sutartinai daugelyje šalių bausmė nukreipta į: nubaudimą, bendrąją prevenciją ir reabilitaciją, todėl ne tokių sunkių nusikalstamų veikų atvejais galime taikyti bausmę, kuri labiau orientuota į asmens ankstesnio gyvenimo keitimą, imantis realių veiksmų (gydomųjų programų kitos pagalbos, individualizuotų įpareigojimų nustatymo). Nustatyta, kad viena pažangiausių kriminalinių bausmių, veikianti kaip savotiška nuteistųjų resocializacijos priemonė – laisvės apribojimo bausmė, Baudžiamajame kodekse egzistuoja pagrįstai, nes nuteistiesiems teikiant pagalbą ir taikant įpareigojimus galima pasiekti bausmės tikslus, nors ir ne pilna apimtimi, nes neįmanoma užtikrinti absoliutaus bausmės įgyvendinimo visų nuteistųjų atvejais, bet remiantis duomenimis matoma, kad didžioji dalis asmenų įvykdo bausmę pilna apimtimi ir realu tikėtis, jog jos vykdymas padeda padaryti išvadas dėl veiksmų ateityje.
The aim of the Master thesis is to determine whether the application of custodial or non-custodial penalty of restriction of liberty is adequate and sufficient measure to achieve the common goals of punishment in various offenses cases, and whether this punishment is effective and reasonably exists in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The thesis analyzes the concept of punishment, the meaning of individualization and equity principles when sentencing. The Master thesis also analyzes the legislative provisions governing the objectives of the penalty established in Article 41 of the Criminal Code, the punishment of restriction of liberty set forth in Article 48 of the Criminal Code and the enforcement provided for in Article 47 of the Penal Code. The thesis provides a comparison of the general objectives of punishment and the objectives of the punishment of restriction of liberty, the thesis analyzes whether all the objectives can be achieved. The thesis studies practical cases in which a penalty of restriction of liberty has been imposed and how it has been enforced, the thesis also studies the situations when such penalty is replaced by another penalty (in case of the failure to implement the objectives of punishment), the Master thesis analyses statistics and the place of this punishment in the state legal system. The aim of the thesis is to answer the question whether the purpose for punishment of restriction of liberty ensures the implementation of the goals of punishment. The European penal policy is going in the purposeful direction towards reducing the punishment of an actual custodial sentence, thus reducing the number of prisoners and seeking the effective socialization of convicted persons and their integration into society. The individuals who recognize the existence of legal norms carry out the punishment in an acceptable environment with certain restrictions, which both help to correct the behavior and attitudes, and are able to ensure the realization of the objectives of punishment. Therefore, the thesis has analyzed the manner in which each of the common purposes of the punishment has been implemented when applying this penalty. In order to ensure the principles of proportionality and fairness, in most cases the court reasonably chooses the types of penalties for restriction of liberty for the accused persons, who are being sentenced for the first time for less serious crimes, by applying obligations and prohibitions directed at the particular individual’s correction and adequate implementation of the punishment goals. The most often problem is that some of the convicted persons are not affected by this punishment and it has to be replaced by a severe penalty – arrest, which as the punishment - a short-term detention, is not efficient. When the penalty is executed improperly or is not executed at all, changing the type of penalty the courts are free to interpret the concept of “avoidance” to carry out the sentence, therefore it would be advisable to set some more specific criteria based on which the probation service should apply for sentence modification, because currently many submissions remain not satisfied. The analysis of scientific literature, foreign and Lithuanian legislation, case law, leads to the conclusion that in many countries the punishment is directed to: punishment, general prevention and rehabilitation, therefore in cases of less serious offences we can apply a punishment that is more focused on the change of the person's previous life by taking real actions (healing programs, other assistance, determination of individualized obligations). It has been found out that one of the most advanced criminal penalties acting as a sort of re-socialization measure of the convicts - the penalty of restriction of liberty – reasonably exists in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania because by providing aid and applying obligations to the convicts the punishment goals can be achieved, though not to the full extent, because it is impossible to guarantee the absolute implementation of the punishment in all cases, but the information shows that most of the convicts execute the sentence to the full extent and it is realistic to expect that its implementation helps to draw conclusions for the future actions. Recommendations: in order to ensure that the punishment goals are achieved at the higher extent as possible, that the sentence has a real impact on convicts, it is suggested to establish in the Criminal and Penal Codes that in case of failure to carry out the sentence of restriction of liberty or in case of realizing that it is not effective, or that other measures would be more effective, the prohibitions or restrictions to the convict shall be revised or supplemented, if the obligations are carried out offhandedly, when it is possible to extend their implementation. What is more, to provide the possibility to change the penalty of restriction of liberty into not only arrest, but also into a fine. It is believed that it would be a more effective measure as it has been proven that a short-term arrest is not an effective punishment, while at least some people are concerned about their financial situation, therefore it is likely that they would make a greater effort to dutifully carry out the prohibitions and obligations imposed by the penalty of restriction of liberty. It is also advisable to clearly define the concept of what is considered to be “avoidance” to carry out the penalty of restriction of liberty, including the cases when there are other offenses, which also clearly show that the punishment objectives designed to influence a person to comply with the law cannot be fully achieved if a person is offhandedly looking at the nature of the punishment. It would be useful to establish in the Criminal Code the obligation to participate in the social rehabilitation programs as determined at the discretion of the court, to expand the variety of the existing programs (social - rehabilitation work), such as: emotions and anger management, aggressive behavior, etc. programs for persons convicted of violent crimes in order to prevent the recurrence of crimes. The mere supervision does not help to implement the goals of punishment, there has to be a direct work with convicted persons in order to ensure safe environment for the society in which the sentenced person lives both during the execution time of the sentence and after it.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34810
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34810
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

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)

88
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Download(s)

962
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


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