Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36363
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Rudaitis, Justas
Title: Ar subendrintos dalinio sudėjimo būdu bausmės skyrimas įgyvendina teisingumo principą?
Other Title: Whether a partially cumulative sentence ensures the implementation of the principle of justice?
Extent: 47 p.
Date: 7-Jun-2018
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Bausmių bendrinimas;Dalinis bausmių sudėjimas;Bausmės individualizavimas;Multiple Offences;Partially Cumulative Sentences;Individualization of Punishment
Abstract: Baudžiamasis kodeksas numato tris bausmių bendrinimo būdus: bausmių apėmimą, dalinį ir visišką jų sudėjimą. Atvejus, kada teismas privalo taikyti bausmių apėmimą išsamiai numato BK 63 straipsnio 5 dalis, todėl šiuo klausimu yra nustatytos aiškios ribos, kurių teismai privalo laikytis, visiškas bausmių sudėjimas taip pat nekelia problemų, nes teismams užtenka visas bausmes pilnai sudėti. Problema kyla tuomet kai teismui reikia subendrinti bausmes dalinio sudėjimo būdu. Iki įsigaliojant naujai Baudžiamojo kodekso 63 str. 4 d. ir 64 str. 3 dalies redakcijai, baudžiamasis įstatymas išsamiau nereglamentavo dalinio bausmių sudėjimo instituto, o tiesiog numatė tokią galimybę, todėl visa diskrecija šiuo klausimu teko teismams. Atsižvelgiant į tai, darbe analizuota teismų praktika ir tendencija sprendžiant subendrintos dalinio sudėjimo būdu bausmės skyrimą, iki minėtų įstatymo pakeitimų, kuri atskleidė, kad teismai dažniausiai tik konstatuoja dalinio bausmių sudėjimo instituto taikymo faktą, o išsamiau šiuo klausimu pasisako tik retais atvejais. Nei pridedamų dalių dydžių, nei motyvų, kodėl pasirenkama pridėti atitinkamą bausmės dalį, o juo labiau motyvų dėl galutinės bausmės dydžio teismai dažniausiai nenurodo. Toks dalinio bausmių sudėjimo taikymo vertinimas lemia ne tik nenuoseklią bei prieštaringą teismų praktiką šio instituto taikymo atžvilgiu, bet taip tokiu būdu nėra įgyvendinami individualizuotos bei teisingos bausmės skyrimo principai. Įsigaliojusi nauja BK 63 str. 4 d. ir 64 str. 3 dalies redakcija, nustatė minimalų pridedamos bausmės dalies dydį, bei reikalauja nurodyti kiekvienos iš pridedamų bausmės dalių parinkimo motyvai. Šie įstatymo pokyčiai turėtų padaryti teismų sprendimus dalinio bausmių subendrinimo klausimu išsamesnius, padėti geriau individualizuoti galutinę bausmę ir užtikrinti tinkamą teisingumo principo įgyvendinimą. Galima teigti, kad šiame darbe iškelta hipotezė pasitvirtino, kadangi išanalizavus dalinio bausmių bendrinimo taikymo sąlygas, bei atlikus teismų praktikos analizę daroma išvada, kad teismai spręsdami šį klausimą tik retais atvejais tinkamai jį motyvuodavo, o dėl to dažniausiai kildavo abejonių ar toks sprendimas užtikrindavo teisingumo principo įgyvendinimą, galutinės bausmės atžvilgiu
Multiple offence sentencing is a fairly common procedure in the Lithuanian court system. These cases can consist of two or many more crimes, the offender may have committed the crimes within a short or longer period of time, the offences may have been committed by a single criminal undertaking or by several. There are many ways in which multiple offences can be committed but what all of them have in common is that these offences are charged and convicted separately but sentenced in the same court hearing. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania establishes legal norms that regulate how an individual accused of multiple offences should be sentenced. Article 63 of the Criminal Code notes that when imposing a final combined sentence, the court may impose either a consolidated sentence or a fully or partially cumulative sentence. The study focuses on partially cumulative sentences and the goal of the study is to reveal whether a partially cumulative sentence ensures the implementation of the principle of justice. The following objectives were formulated to achieve the set goal: 1) To analyze the conditions and prerequisites of the application of partially cumulative sentences and their changes; 2) To ascertain whether courts motivate their decisions and state on what grounds do they impose partially cumulative sentences, according to case law; 3) To reveal the principles of individualization and justice; 4) To determine whether partially cumulative sentences ensure the implementation of the principle of justice. The Criminal Code states that where a partially cumulative sentence is imposed, more lenient penalties shall be added in part to the most severe penalty imposed for one of the committed criminal acts. Before the new amendment (on 6th of October 2017) of article 63 and 64 of the Criminal Code of Lithuania, the Code did not regulate in detail how courts should partially add up sentences, but merely foreseen such a possibility and therefore courts had full discretion regarding this matter. Considering the aforementioned the paper analyzes court case law and its tendency regarding partially cumulative sentences. Without any legal obligation to motivate the size of the partially added sentences, courts in most cases did not state the grounds on which they determined to add a particular size of the more lenient sentence and did not indicate the actual size of the more lenient sentence that is being added to the most severe sentence. Such an application of partially cumulative sentence process leads to an inconsistent and contradictory case law and begs the question whether the final combined sentence is always duly individualized and whether it ensures the implementation of principle of justice. The analysis of scientific literature and case law leads to a conclusion that indicating the partial size of the more lenient sentence and motivating the grounds of which such a decision was 5 made is an essential part of the process of partially cumulating several sentences. Regarding this issue amendments to articles 63 and 64 of the Criminal Code regulating partially cumulative sentences were made. The new amendment of article 63 states that where a partially cumulative sentence is imposed, more lenient penalties shall be added in part to the most severe penalty imposed for one of the committed criminal acts and motives for choosing each of the part of the less severe sentence are indicated. The part of the sentence that is being added cannot be lower than the minimum size of that type of sentence (which is indicated in the Criminal Code). So besides determining the obligation for the court to motivate its decision to add a particular part of the more lenient sentence, the new amendment also establishes the minimum size of the added part. However, before the amendment court law had already established such a rule (minimum size) in its case law, even though it was not yet a part of the Criminal Code. Nevertheless, an analysis of the most recent case law shows that courts are not so keen to follow this new amendment of the mention articles. After reviewing more than 40 cases of the recent months, case-law on this issue has remained quite similar to that which has been established before the changes of the aforementioned articles. Although the law states that the court is required to justify the size of the added part of the more lenient punishment, this legal norm however, at least so far, is not fully implemented. A conclusion can be drawn that the hypothesis has been supported. An analysis of the scientific literature and a detailed study of case law revealed that justifying the grounds on which a court determines to add a particular part of a more lenient sentence to the most severe penalty imposed for one of the committed criminal acts is an essential part of the partially cumulative sentencing process. Without this kind of a justification regarding court’s decision, even after the new amendments to articles 63 and 64, it is still doubtful whether a partially cumulative sentence ensures the implementation of the principle of justice.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36363
Appears in Collections:2018 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
Show full item record

Page view(s)

66
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

168
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


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