OD KONTRADIKTORNOSTI K KONSENZUALNOSTI

Grumić, Zora

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	OD KONTRADIKTORNOSTI K KONSENZUALNOSTI
Authors:	ID Grumić, Zora (Author) ID Dežman, Zlatan (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	UNI_Grumic_Zora_2010.pdf (398,08 KB) MD5: CE5801A96C1503E608DD039E4E21CFFD PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/7b9b91b0-d0cf-4611-b13c-86128e3a291b
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Undergraduate thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Preobremenjenost sodišč in dolgotrajnost postopkov botrujejo spremembam slovenskega kazenskega postopka od kontradiktornega k konsenzualnemu modelu, zgledujoč se po angloameriških in modernih evropskih kontinentalnih modelih kazenskega postopka. V ospredju je učinkovitost kazenskopravnega sodstva in ekonomičnost postopka, ki pripelje k hitrejši in cenovno ugodnejši sprejeti sodni odločitvi. Konsenzualne oblike kazenskega postopka imajo za cilj rešitev spornih zadev v obliki sporazumnega skrajšanja, zaključka ali izognitvi kazenskega postopka. Konsenzualnost je prisotna v vseh oblikah kazenskih postopkov, tudi v naši kazensko procesni zakonodaji, kjer si je utirala pot skozi določene konsenzualne oblike kot so poravnava v predkazenskem postopku, pogojna odložitev kazenskega pregona, skrajšana oblika kazenskega postopka in postopek s kaznovalnim nalogom. Gre za izjeme od rednega kazenskega postopka, v katerem igrajo pomembno vlogo temeljna načela kazenskega postopka kot so: načelo legalitete, načelo kontradiktornosti, pravica do neodvisnega in nepristranskega sodstva, načelo pravičnega sojenja, domneva nedolžnosti, pravica do obrambe, načelo materialne resnice, načelo javnega in neposrednega sojenja, pravica do pravnih sredstev. Našteta načela zagotavljajo pravičen kazenski postopek in sledijo cilju kazenskega postopka, ugotovitvi dejanskega stanja kot podlage izreka o obdolženčevi krivdi in kazni. Kar je v nasprotju s konsenzualnimi postopki, katerih cilj je sporazumna rešitev spora med državo in obdolžencem, v zameno za določene ugodnosti pri izbiri in odmeri kazni, ob sporazumnem obdolženčevem priznanju krivde ali utemeljenosti obtožbe, ob pripravljenosti odpovedi temeljnim procesnim pravicam. Z omejenim prenosom konsenzualnih oblik iz adversarnega v mešan model kazenskega postopka, so konsenzualni postopki dobrodošli. Uvedba instituta plea bargaining-a, kot najbolj sporne konsenzualne oblike kazenskega postopka, je za naš mešan model kazenskega postopka nesprejemljiva tako z vidika doktrine varstva človekovih pravic kot cilja in družbene vloge mešanega kazenskega postopka.
Keywords:	redni kazenski postopek, konsenzualni postopki, temeljna procesna načela, cilji kazenskega postopka
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Publisher:	[Z. Grumić]
Year of publishing:	2010
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-16813
UDC:	34(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:	4170795
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:GZFRWPKY
Publication date in DKUM:	04.01.2011
Views:	3192
Downloads:	461
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	FROM ADVERSARIAL TO CONSENSUAL
Abstract:	Overburdened courts and the lengthy procedures have caused a change in Slovenian criminal proceedings from adversarial to consensus as seen in the Anglo-American and modern European continental criminal proceedings. The efficiency and economy of criminal law judiciary that would lead to faster and cheaper judicial decision is taken into consideration. Consensual forms of criminal proceedings aim to tackle controversial issues in the form of reduction, conclusion or avoidance of criminal proceedings. Consensus is present in all forms of criminal proceedings, as well as in our criminal procedural law that was instituted through specific consensual forms, such as settlement of pre-trial proceedings, conditional suspension of prosecution, a shortened form of the criminal proceedings and proceedings with a punitive order. But these do not agree with the regular criminal proceedings, where an important role is played by the fundamental principles of criminal proceedings: the principle of legality, the adversarial principle, the right to an independent and impartial judiciary, the principle of a just trial, presumption of innocence, the right to defense, the principle of material truth, the principle of open court and direct trial and the right to seek redress. These principles provide an equitable criminal proceedings and aim to the final decision of criminal procedure and to the establishment of the facts that serve as the imposition of the defendant’s guilt and punishment. However, these contradict the consensual proceedings that aim to the amicable settlement between the state and the accused, where in return for consensual admission of guilt or the merits of the allegations certain privileges are taken into consideration at the determination of sentencing and the sentence itself. The consensual proceedings are welcomed with a limited transfer of consensual forms from the adversary to the mixed model of criminal proceedings. The introduction of the plea bargaining as one of the most controversial forms of the consensual criminal proceedings is not acceptable for our mixed model of criminal proceedings, both in terms of the doctrine of human rights protection and the social role of mixed criminal proceedings.
Keywords:	regular criminal proceedings, consensual proceedings, fundamental process principles, the objectives of the criminal proceedings

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back