Dokazni postopek na glavni obravnavi - slabosti današnje ureditve : diplomsko delo visokošolskega strokovnega študija Varstvoslovje

Tajnšek, Andreja

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Dokazni postopek na glavni obravnavi - slabosti današnje ureditve : diplomsko delo visokošolskega strokovnega študija Varstvoslovje
Authors:	ID Tajnšek, Andreja (Author) ID Dežman, Zlatko (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	VS_Tajnsek_Andreja_2012.pdf (666,87 KB) MD5: 1CF7BED50E8DD48772D49C439D27158F PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/b05dba80-988a-4119-8459-28f9ae47710b
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Undergraduate thesis
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	FVV - Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security
Abstract:	Diplomsko delo poskuša podrobneje predstaviti glavno obravnavo in njene slabosti ter novosti, ki jih prinaša novela o ZKP. Ker je glavna obravnava javna, se namreč prav tu najbolj vidi neučinkovitost kazenskega postopka. Dokazovanje oz. dokazni postopek je eno najpomembnejših dogajanj na glavni obravnavi, zato je pomembno izvesti vse zbrane dokaze in le-te upoštevati na sodišču. Ker lahko kaj hitro posežemo v človekove pravice, pa je pomembno, da se zbiranje dokazov izvaja po zakonu. Pomembno je zbrati in izvesti dovolj dokazov, ki so verodostojni in bodo odločilno vplivali na izrek sodbe. Bistvena novost, ki jo prinaša novela ZKP, je uvedba nove vmesne faze kazenskega postopka, in sicer po pravnomočnosti obtožnice in pred razpisom glavne obravnave, t. i. predobravnavni narok. To bo omogočalo izvedbo skrajšanih oziroma poenostavljenih oblik kazenskega postopka ter ekonomičen potek glavne obravnave. Osnovni namen tega naroka je, da se ugotovi, ali obdolženec priznava krivdo ali ne, ker bo od tega odvisen nadaljnji potek postopka. Zelo pomembna novost je tudi uvedba sporazuma o priznanju krivde. S predlaganimi novostmi se uzakonja možnost, da se državni tožilec in obdolženec, ki bo v takem primeru obvezno moral imeti zagovornika, dogovorita, pod kakšnimi pogoji bo obdolženec pred sodiščem priznal krivdo. Možnost sojenja v kazenskih zadevah na podlagi predhodnega dogovora med tožilcem in obdolžencem je sprejeta tudi v mnogih drugih evropskih državah. Nekateri avtorji ocenjujejo, da se nov osnutek vrača od kontradiktornosti nazaj k inkvizitornemu kazenskemu postopku. Prav tako sem v nekaterih člankih zasledila, da naj bi imela policija in državni tožilec premoč v preiskovalnem postopku, obramba pa prešibko vlogo ter neenakost zbiranja dokaznega gradiva. Novi ZKP-1 naj bi prispeval k večji hitrosti postopka, omogočil uporabo različnih načinov obravnavanja glede na naravo zadeve in odločitev strank, prispeval k njihovi večji aktivnosti in v spremenjenem procesnem okolju zagotovil obdolžencu enako raven človekovih pravic.
Keywords:	kazenski postopek, dokazni postopek, dokazni standardi, dokazi, dokazna sredstva, dokazne prepovedi, obravnave, diplomske naloge
Place of publishing:	[Ljubljana
Publisher:	A. Tajnšek]
Year of publishing:	2012
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-36873
UDC:	343.1
COBISS.SI-ID:	2465258
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:5MC3TSC4
Publication date in DKUM:	15.10.2012
Views:	3487
Downloads:	789
Metadata:
Categories:	FVV
:	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

Abstract:

In this Thesis The Main Hearing is introduced in detail. It includes a presentation of its weaknessess and new features, which the Amendment to the ZKP brings. As the Main Hearing is public, the inefficiency of the criminal proceedings is the most evident there. Evidence proceedings is one of the most important parts of the Main Hearing; this is why all the collected evidence has to be processed and taken into account in court. It is vital to collect evidence according to the law as human rights can easily be interferred with. It is important to collect and implement enough evidence which is credible and will have a decisive impact on the delivery of a judgment. The main new feature introduced by Amendment ZKP is the introduction of new intermediate phases of criminal proceedings, namely after final charges and tender before the Main Hearing, i.e. Pre-Trial Hearing. This will enable the implementation of abridged and simplified forms of criminal proceedings and the economical conduct of the trial. The primary purpose of this hearing is to establish whether the accused confesses guilt, as further courses of action will depend on that. The Implementation of Agreement on the admission of guilt is a very important feature. Suggested new features legalises the posibility that the State Prosecutor and the accused , who will, in this case, have to have a defender, reach an agreement which will state the conditions under which the accused will plead guilty before the court. The possibility of trial in criminal cases on the basis of prior agreement between the prosecutor and the accused is also accepted in many European countries. Some authors estimate that the new draft returns to the adversarial nature of the inquisitorial criminal procedure. In some articles I found that the Police and the State Prosecutor could have superiority in the investigation procedure and that the role of defence is too weak and has an unequal role of collecting evidence. The New ZKP-1 is supposed to contribute towards faster proceedings, enable the use of various ways of treatments according to the nature of a case and a parties' decision, and also contribute to their increased activity in the changed process environment which will enable the same level of Human Rights for the accused.

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back