|Abstract: ||Šiame magistro darbe buvo analizuojamas Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 75 straipsnyje įtvirtintas bausmių vykdymo atidėjimo institutas bei šio straipsnio naujausia redakcija, kuria buvo apribotos šio instituto taikymo galimybės. 2017 metų spalio 6 dieną įsigaliojusiais baudžiamojo kodekso pakeitimais buvo panaikinta galimybė atidėti paskirtos laisvės atėmimo bausmės vykdymą už sunkius nusikaltimus jei paskirta laisvės atėmimo bausmė neviršydavo 4 metų ir vėl grįžta prie to, kad atidėti paskirtos bausmės vykdymą teismai gali tik už dėl neatsargumo padarytus nusikaltimus jei paskirta bausmė neviršija šešerių metų arba už vieną ar kelis nesunkius ar apysunkius tyčinius nusikaltimus, jei paskirta bausmė neviršija ketverių metų. Atsižvelgiant į tai, šiuo darbu buvo siekta išanalizuoti ar ši baudžiamojo kodekso redakcija neapriboja teismo, įvertinus visas su byla susijusias aplinkybes, paskirti tinkamai individualizuotą ir teisingą bausmę.
Analizuojant šį probleminį klausimą buvo išnagrinėtas pats bausmės skyrimo procesas, atskleista bausmės samprata bei jos paskirtis, teisingumo principo įgyvendinimas bausmės skyrimo procese. Nuodugniai išanalizuotas bausmių vykdymo atidėjimo institutas, jo reglamentavimo raida Lietuvoje. Išnagrinėta bausmės vykdymo atidėjimo už sunkius nusikaltimus problematika bei įvertintos bausmės tikslų įgyvendinimo galimybes. Taip pat darbe apžvelgiama ir Lietuvos teismų praktika taikant bausmių vykdymo atidėjimo institutą.
Atlikus tyrimą, nustatyta, kad panaikinus galimybę atidėti paskirtos laisvės atėmimo bausmės vykdymą už sunkius nusikaltimus yra apribojamas bausmės individualizavimas ir teisingumo principo įgyvendinimas bausmės skyrimo procese, kas patvirtina darbe iškeltą hipotezę. Nors sunkūs nusikaltimai savaime turėtų parodyti didelį pavojingumo laipsnį, o asmenys padarę tokius nusikaltimus turėtų būti laikomi pavojingais, tačiau sunkūs nusikaltimai nėra vienodi, o juos padarę asmenys taip pat yra skirtingi, todėl teismas išanalizavęs visas bylos aplinkybes ir matant galimybę pasiekti bausmės tikslus ir nepaskiriant realios laisvės atėmimo bausmės turėtų būti suteikta galimybė atidėti paskirtos bausmės vykdymą.|
This thesis analyzes the Criminal Code’s of the Republic of Lithuania Article 75 the institute of suspension of sentence execution and this Article’s latest edit which the application of suspension of sentence execution was limited. The amendments of the Criminal Code, which entered into force on the 6th of October 2017, eliminated the possibility of delaying the execution of the sentence of imprisonment for serious crimes if the imprisonment was not for more than 4 years. They are again returning to the fact that the courts can only postpone the execution of the imposed punishment for crimes committed for negligence only if the sentence imposed is not for more than six years or for one or more not serious or semi-serious intentional crimes if the sentence imposed does not exceed four years imprisonment. This edited version of the article has been criticized by many criminologists, since in Lithuania people are already subject to a strict criminal policy, and imprisonment is one of the most common types of punishment. Due to the choice of strict criminal punishments oriented to imprisonment, Lithuania faces another problem: the number of people who have been sentenced in the European Union, according to the highest relative number of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. Nonetheless, strict criminal policy does not produce the desired results; in many cases, prisoners not only do not change, but become even more involved in criminal life and because of the violent culture in prisons they are even more prone to committing crimes before imprisonment. Moreover, the country does not reduce the number of violations, namely, one of the aims of the punishment to correct the perpetrator and deter from committing more crimes as a result of which more and more countries have begun to mitigate criminal policy. The criminal law looks for more different types of punishment and various possible forms of punishment and seeks alternative and effective punishments that are not related to imprisonment.
Even though Lithuania also considers mitigating criminal law, reducing the number of prisoners, reducing the actual imprisonment and seeks to be closer to Western European culture, eliminating the possibility of postponing the execution of serious crimes seemed like a step back. Nevertheless, one of the main arguments for postponing punishment for serious crimes should be the fact that serious crimes in itself show a high degree of severity and people who have committed such offenses are considered dangerous, therefore, the purpose of punishment is not achieved through the application of this institute, the implementation of the principle of justice and there is no criminal liability effect. However, it must be noted that serious crimes committed are not the same, the people who have committed them also differ, and therefore the prohibition of applying this institute solely to the seriousness of the crime is not entirely correct. In addition, the court must, prior to postponing the execution of a sentence, assess all the circumstances of the case, both in relation to the committed offense and with the personality of the convict, and only having concluded that the purpose of the sentence can be achieved without the real imprisonment, the sentence may be postponed. It needs to be emphasized that the institute of suspension of sentence execution contributes to minimizing the unjustified imposition of imprisonment and gives the court the opportunity to appoint not only the right but also to assess the circumstances and to assign the individual and most appropriate sentence. Regarding this, the aim of this thesis was to analyze and evaluate whether the possibility of postponing the imprisonment execution for serious crimes enabled the individualization of the sentence and implementation of the principle of justice in the process of sentencing. There were raised the following tasks: 1. To reveal the essence and the use of punishment; 2. To evaluate the implementation of the principle of individualization and justice in the process of sentencing; 3. To analyze the problematic aspects of the sentence of imprisonment. 4. To dilute and analyze the institute of suspension of sentence execution as a possible form of sentence execution; 5. To analyze the problem of suspension of punishment for serious crimes and to evaluate the possibilities of realizing punishment purposes;
During the analysis of this question, the very process of imposing the sentence was analyzed, the concept of punishment and its purpose, the implementation of the principle of justice in the process of punishment were revealed. In-depth analysis of the institute of suspension of sentence execution was carried out as well as institute’s development of regulation in Lithuania. The problems of postponement of execution for serious crimes and the possibilities of realization of the goals of punishment were analyzed. The thesis also reviews the practice of Lithuanian courts in applying the institute of sentence suspension. In addition, the following research methods were used at in this thesis: descriptive, comparative, historical, statistical, analytical, systematic method of interpretation of law.
At the beginning of the thesis, a hypothesis was raised that the abolition of the possibility of delaying the execution of imprisonment for serious crime limits the possibilities for the court to impose an individualized and right punishment. The research confirmed the hypothesis and it was found that after eliminating the possibility of delaying the execution of the imprisonment for serious crimes the personalization of the sentence and the implementation of the principle of justice are limited in the process of imposing the sentence and that this restriction does not allow the courts to be more flexible and respond adequately based on various circumstances of the case. However, it is emphasized that the institute of postponement of imprisonment is a moderate severity legal penalty which is considered to be proportional and an appropriate form for the country to react to moderate and serious crimes. In addition, it is the court’s right to apply the suspension of sentence execution, and the data in the case must provide the court with the conclusion that the person who committed the crime, is corrected and supervised by the law, will recover his positive social status and benefit to the public without real imprisonment, therefore, this is an exceptional form of execution of the sentence. Also, in all cases, it must be taken into account whether there is the possibility of imposing another more moderate punishment because they have to give the priority to the moderate one and it would be the most appropriate for the court to use the institute of suspending the sentence execution when a sanction of the special part of the Criminal Code provides for a sentence of imprisonment only.