| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font
First page > Show document

Show document Help

Title:STRATEGIJA OBDOLŽENČEVE OBRAMBE IN NJENA DOKAZNA PRESOJA
Authors:ID Filipančič, Andreja (Author)
ID Dežman, Zlatan (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UNI_Filipancic_Andreja_2012.pdf (808,26 KB)
MD5: AB0FF448AC72AD98B8E23897044A260D
PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/887e89f5-b820-4d92-9816-894294d76aeb
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Undergraduate thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:V sodobnem kazenskem postopku so obdolžencu kot temeljnemu procesnemu subjektu, ki opravlja funkcijo obrambe, zagotovljene številne pravice, mnoge že na ustavni in tudi na mednarodni ravni. Ena njegovih najpomembnejših pravic je tudi pravica do obrambe, ki temelji na domnevi nedolžnosti in izhaja iz temeljne pravice do poštenega postopka. Gre za obdolženčevo pravico, da aktivno in po lastni presoji deluje v svojo korist pri zavračanju obtožbe, ki pa ni hkrati tudi njegova dolžnost, saj lahko njegova obramba temelji tudi na molku. V okvir pravice do obrambe sodi tudi obdolženčeva pravica, da oblikuje in izvaja strategijo obrambe po svoji presoji in v skladu s svojimi interesi. Glede na to, da je moč iz posameznih obrambnih načinov oziroma taktik obdolžencev najti nekatere skupne značilnosti, lahko govorimo o nekaterih tipičnih strategijah obrambe. Temeljne tri strategije obrambe so: obramba z molkom; zagovor, v katerem obdolženec zanika storitev kaznivega dejanja ter zagovor, v katerem obdolženec priznava kaznivo dejanje. Katero strategijo bo obdolženec izbral, je odvisno od več faktorjev, in sicer od same vrste kaznivega dejanja, nasveta odvetnika, osebnih značilnosti obdolženca, dokazne situacije ipd. Izbira strategije obrambe je odvisna tudi od kazenskopravne zakonodaje. Zadnja novela ZKP-K tako prinaša nove možnosti oziroma nove pomisleke pri odločitvi obrambe, katero obrambno strategijo uporabiti. Nova vmesna faza- predobravnavni narok tako predvideva obdolženčevo izjavo o obtožbi že v tej fazi postopka, novost je tudi možnost pogajanj in sklenitve sporazuma o priznanju krivde, ter možnost odpovedi določenim razpoložljivim procesnim jamstvom zaradi hitrejšega poteka glavne obravnave. Obdolženec lahko strategijo obrambe glede na konkretno dokazno situacijo tekom postopka tudi spreminja. Obdolženec je po eni strani subjekt kazenskega postopka, po drugi strani pa je njegova obramba dokazno sredstvo. Zaslišanje je procesno dejanje, s katerim se pride do obdolženčeve izpovedbe. Če obdolženec na zaslišanju, ki je opravljeno v skladu z zakonom, poda svojo izpovedbo oziroma zagovor, je le-to aktivno dokazno sredstvo, na katerem lahko v zvezi z odločilnimi pravno relevantnimi dejstvi temelji sodna odločba. Sodišče pri presoji dokazne vrednosti posameznih dokazov (tudi obdolženčevega zagovora) ni vezano na nobena posebna formalna dokazna pravila, ampak v skladu z načelom proste presoje dokazov (ne glede na strategijo obrambe) odloča, katerim dokazom verjame in v kolikšni meri.
Keywords:Obdolženec, pravica do obrambe, strategije obrambe, molk, zanikanje, priznanje, zaslišanje, dokazna presoja, pogajanja o priznanju krivde.
Place of publishing:Maribor
Publisher:[A. Filipančič]
Year of publishing:2012
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-22128 New window
UDC:34(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:4326955 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:IDPUYP5I
Publication date in DKUM:14.03.2012
Views:5809
Downloads:486
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and 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:DEFENSE STRATEGY OF THE ACCUSED AND THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE
Abstract:The accused as a fundamental process entity in modern criminal proceedings, who performs the function of defence, has a number of rights, many of them are already guaranteed at the constitutional and even international level. One of his most important rights is also the right to defence, which is based on the presumption of innocence and derives from the fundamental right to a fair trial. It is the right of the accused to actively and discretionally participte in his favour in the rejection of charges, while considering that it is not also his duty, since his defence may be based on silence. In the framework of the right of defence is also the right to establish and implement a defence strategy in his discretion and in accordance with his own interests. Given that within the individual defending methods and tactics some common characteristics can be found, we can talk about some typical defence strategies. Three fundamental defence strategies are: silence as a defence; defence, in which the accused denies committing the offense and defence, in which the accused recognises the criminal offense. Which strategy will be chosen by the accused depends on several factors, varying from a type of criminal offense, a lawyer′s advice, personal characteristics of the accused, evidence situation, etc. The choice of defence strategy also depends upon the criminal legislation. The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act- ZKP-K brings new opportunities and new concerns for the decision of the accused, which defence strategy to use. New intermediate phase- a pre-trial hearing provides an accused′s statement on the indictment already at this stage of the proceeding, the novelty is also the concept of plea bargaining and the possibility of denunciation of the available procedural guarantees due to the faster course of the trial. The accused may also change his defence strategy in respect with a specific evidence situation during the process. On one hand, the accused is an entity of the criminal proceedings, while on the other hand his defence is also an evidence. The hearing is a procedural step, which enables testimony of the accused. If the latter at the hearing, that is carried out in accordance with the law, gives his testimony or defence, this presents an active evidence on which the court′s decision on decisive and legally relevant facts may be based. In assessing evidence value of individual evidence (also defence of the accused) the court is not bound by any specific formal evidence rules, but in accordance with the principle of free assessment of evidence (regardless the type of defence strategy), it decides which evidence to believe and to what extent.
Keywords:Accused, the right of defense, defense strategy, silence, denial, recognition, hearing, assessment of evidence, plea bargaining.


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica