Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34833
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Author(s): Petronis, Karolis
Title: Ar smurtas sporte, nesilaikant atitinkamai sporto šakai nustatytų taisyklių, sukeliant žalą sveikatai, užtraukia asmeniui baudžiamąją atsakomybę?
Other Title: Whether violence in sport, causing damage to health, when failed to comply with the rules of concerned sport, result in criminal liability?
Extent: 44 p.
Date: 1-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Smurtas;Sportas;Taisyklės;Sutikimas;Violence;Sport;Rules;Consent
Abstract: Darbe buvo siekiama išnagrinėti, ar smurto naudojimas sporte, peržengiant tai sporto šakai taisyklėmis nustatytas ribas, gali užtraukti baudžiamąją atsakomybę. Temos aktualumas grindžiamas tuo, kad sportas negali būti specifinė sritis, kurioje asmenys, sukėlę atitinkamus smurtinius padarinius, kai atitinkamos sporto šakos taisyklės yra peržengiamos, turėtų imunitetą nuo baudžiamosios atsakomybės. Daugelis smurtinių atvejų sporte lieka neatskleisti arba įvertinti tik asociacijos/federacijos lygmeniu, todėl gali būti priskiriami prie latentinių nusikaltimų. Šiam tikslui pasiekti buvo užsibrėžta išnagrinėti sporto taisykles ir iš jų išvedamus institutus, siekiant nubrėžti ribas tarp to, kas teisėta ir tarp to, kas peržengia sporto taisyklių ir iš jų išvedamų institutų ribas. Taip pat darbe buvo nagrinėjama sportininko sutikimo doktrina, kuri aktuali tuo, kad sportas yra specifinė sritis, kur sportininkas sutinka su tam tikra rizika kilti traumai, todėl buvo nagrinėjamos sutikimo ribos: su kuo konkrečiai sportininkas sutinka, ir ar tai, kas išeina iš sutikimo ribų, gali asmeniui užtraukti baudžiamąją atsakomybę. Išnagrinėjus minėtus aspektus, buvo analizuojama, ar baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas už smurtą sporte, kai atitinkamos sporto šakos taisyklės yra peržengiamos, neprieštarautų ultima ratio principui. Išanalizavus nagrinėjamą temą, prieita prie išvados, kad norint taikyti baudžiamąją atsakomybę už smurtą sporte, kai atitinkamos sporto šakos taisyklės yra peržengiamos, reikia analizuoti ar tam tikras smurtinis elgesys papuola į rašytines ar nerašytines sporto taisykles, sporto kultūros institutą. Jei sportininko smurtinis elgesys nepapuola į nei vieną institutą – galima kalbėti apie baudžiamąją atsakomybę. Taip pat baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas galimas ir nežaidybinėse situacijose, taip pat kai žaidybinėje situacijoje pasirenkamas elgesio modelis, kuris yra netoleruotinas. Išanalizavus sportininko sutikimo doktriną, prieita prie išvados, kad negaliojant sutikimo doktrinai bus peržengiamos ir sporto taisyklių ir iš jų išplaukiančių institutų ribos. Sportininko sutikimas apima rašytines ir nerašytines sporto taisykles, sporto kultūros institutą. Smurtiniam elgesiui peržengiant visus minėtus institutus/taisykles, negalioja ir sportininko sutikimo doktrina, o to pasėkoje galima kalbėti apie baudžiamąją atsakomybę. Taip pat baudžiamoji atsakomybė galima esant akivaizdžiam sutikimo doktrinos negaliojimui – kai smurtinis sportininko elgesys naudojamas nežaidybinėse situacijose, po varžybų, iš keršto. Sutikimo doktriną panaikina ir kaltininko tyčia sužaloti sportininką. Papildomai baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymo gali reikalauti ir viešasis interesas. Kriterijai, dėl kurių galima taikyti baudžiamąją atsakomybę sportininkui viešojo intereso pagrindu - pavojingumo laipsnis arba didelis visuomenės susidomėjimas tam tikru smurtiniu įvykiu sporte. Vertinant sutikimo doktrinos negaliojimą, taip pat turi būti atsižvelgiama ir į objektyviuosius kriterijus, tokius kaip: sąlygos, pagal kurias žaidimas yra žaidžiamas; nagrinėjamų veiksmų pobūdis; panaudotos jėgos laipsnis; tai ar žaidimo taisyklės leidžia susidūrimus, rizikos kilti traumai tikimybė; kaltinamojo būsena; sporto prigimtis ir pobūdis bei tai, ar veiksmai gali būti laikomi instinktyviais. Vertinant visus paminėtus atvejus su ultima ratio principu, kai sukeliami smurtiniai padariniai peržengiant sporto taisykles ir iš jų išplaukiančius institutus, prieita prie išvados, kad baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas minėtaisiais atvejais šiam principui neprieštarautų.
Sports is described as human activity, in which people are competing and developing skills trough using physical and intelectual abilities. Physical contact is inseparable part of mostly sports. Nevertheless, sometimes physical contact in sports is used not for the aims of the sport, but because of anger, intent to injure other player. It does not mean, that every physical contact, which causes violent consequences, should be tolerated. This is why there is necessity to dissociate situations, when physical contact is considered as not complying with the rules of concerned sport and undesirable, because it would be illogical to think that athlete can cause any violent consequences and avoid liability. This is why there is a need to examine, whether violence in sport, when failed to comply with the rules of concerned sport, should result in criminal liability for athletes. Trying to examine this, there is a must to analyse rules of the sport, what is the structure and influence of it, when trying to apply criminal liability for violence in sports, when failed to comply rules of the concerned sport, also how violence is treated concerning rules of the sport. In some sports, unwritten rules also arise. Sports culture is another definition that describes sports rules, this is why there is a need to analize them also to determine the limits of the rules, and whether the breach of the rules can result in criminal liability. Also it is a must to analyse, on the play and off the play conduct, because violence can arise in both. Also doctrine of athlete consent is a must to be analysed, examining, whether consent is assumption, that athlete consents with the consequences during the match – injuries, harm, because sports is specific area, where athletes consent to some sort of risk to contain injuries during the match. So, it is a must to analyse, to what athlete actually consents and whether violent conduct, which exceeds the consent of an athlete, can result in criminal liability. Because ultima ratio principle is very important in criminal law, it is a must to analyse whether criminal liability in sports for athlete‘s violent conduct, when failed to comply with the rules of concerned sport, wouldn‘t confront with this principle. Relevance of the thesis. It is argued, that law should be included to sports regulation. Violence is actual problem in nowadays sport. Usually violent conduct in sports results in penalties made by sports associations, federations, etc. Taking into account that athletes can cause grevious bodily harm or death to another athlete, we should take into consideration that sports can‘t be specific area, where athletes would have immunity from criminal liability for causing violent conduct, having in mind that one of the main sports aims is protection of health. Violent conduct in sports also can be treated as latentic crimes, because athletes usually are unpunished, or punished only with minor punishments, which doesn‘t appear in official statistics of criminal law, because it is punished under federation/asocciation internal punishment mechanism. This is why there is a need to examine, whether there is possible to apply criminal liability in sports, when athlete fails to comply with rules of concerned sport and causes violent consequences. The main goal of the thesis is to determine, whether violence in sport, when failed to comply with the rules of concerned sport, can cause criminal liability. To achieve this goal, these objectives were raised: 1. To disclose the value of written and unwritten rules of the sport, also sports culture, on purpose to apply criminal liability for violence in sport, when rules of the sport are exceeded; 2. To evaluate, whether consent of an athlete results in exemption from criminal liability, when rules of the sport are exceeded; 3. To determine, whether appliance of criminal liability, when rules of the concerned sport are exceeded, doesn‘t conflict with ultima ratio principle. Descriptive, comparative, summative, analysis and systematical methods were used in this thesis. The statement of thesis. Violence in sport, when failed to comply with the rules of concerned sport, can cause criminal liability. When analysed this topic, it was concluded that criminal liability for violence in sport, when failed to comply with rules of the concerned sport, is possible. 1. Whether it can be applied or not, we should look, whether certain violent conduct falls into not only written rules of the concerned sport, but also to unwritten rules (unwritten of concerned sport are usually tolerated because of standarts in that sport, accepptability), also sports culture, which depends on whether referees of the sport tolerate certain violent conduct, also whether coaches ask their athletes to be more violent (if so – criminal liability shouldn‘t occur). If violent conduct doesn‘t fall into one of these criterias, criminal liability is possible. Also criminal liability is possible, when violent consequences are caused in off the ball conduct, because it is serious breach of the rules of concerned sport. On the ball conduct also doesn‘t exempt athlete from criminal liability – when athlete is trying to achieve goals of the concerned sport, but his chosen. behaviour is not tolerated, we can apply criminal liability; 2. Consent of an athlete has it‘s range. When violent conduct exceeds written and unwritten rules of the sport, also sports culture, also it negates consent of an athlete. Criminal liability is also possible when there is obvious invalidity of consent doctrine – when violence is used in off the play conduct, because of anger, revenge, or after the match. Doctrine of consent is also negated when athlete has intent to cause harm to other athlete. Criminal liability is also possible because of public interest. Criterias to invoke public interest – the degree of dangerousness (grevious bodily harm, death of an athlete because of violent in conduct) or huge attention of the public to a certain violent conduct. When evaluating invalidity of an athletes consent there is a must to examine these criterias: conditions, on which the game is played; nature of conduct; degree of force used, whether rules of the game allow collissions between athletes; risk for injury to arise; condition of defendant; nature of the sports; whether violence can be treated as instinctive; 3.Assessing all the examined criterias for violence in sport, when failed to comply with the rules of concerned sport, causing damage to health – when there is intent or serious recklessness and grevious bodily harm or death of another athlete is caused by defendant; when violence is used after the match, because of revenge, anger; when public interest requires criminal liability; when athlete, using violence fails to comply with the rules of the concerned sport - it was concluded, that it would not collide with ultima ratio principle.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34833
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34833
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
Show full item record

Page view(s)

90
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

104
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


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