Pomilostitev - Potreba po institutu v modernih kazenskopravnih sistemih

Kleva, Nina

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Pomilostitev - Potreba po institutu v modernih kazenskopravnih sistemih
Authors:	ID Kleva, Nina (Author) ID Holcman, Borut (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	UNI_Kleva_Nina_2012.pdf (267,54 KB) MD5: 7C1F283160FABAA137B5E95EB853F030 PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/ee6e17b6-fe55-424b-b3af-59c1ff25a7be
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Undergraduate thesis
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Bit, funkcijo pomilostitve in njeno umestitev v pravo se da razumeti samo gledano iz zgodovinske perspektive, zato je nujno spremljati njen nastanek in razvoj od zgodnjih povojev pa vse do danes. V različnih pravnih redih je pomilostitev služila različnim funkcijam; od ublaževanja strogosti kazenskega prava, zlasti zamenjavo smrtne kazni za milejšo, do zavračanja kazenske odgovornosti oseb nesposobnih za razsodno odločanje in navsezadnje zaradi določenih družbeno-političnih interesov. Tradicionalno je pomilostitev uporabljal vladar pri izvrševanju svoje moči, ki je bila toliko večja, kolikor trdnejša je bila vez z njegovimi podaniki, slednjo pa je krepil tudi z izkazovanjem milosti in velikodušnosti. Danes se ga v tej obliki ''kraljevskega prava'' uporablja vse redkeje, saj mora imeti pomilostitev racionalni cilj. Institut pomilostitve je integralni del ustavne sheme vseh jurisdikcij. V pravnih sistemih različnih tipov so funkcije instituta polivalentne, kar kaže, da gre za kompleksen in občutljiv instrument. Primerjalno gledano pripada diskrecijska odločitev šefu države oziroma najvišjemu izvršilnemu telesu, zelo malo držav je podelilo to ''upravičenje'' zakonodajni, nobena pa sodni veji oblasti. Tako sta se razvila dva modela prava milosti; evropski in anglosaksonski. Prvi iz pravnega vidika strogo loči pomilostitev od amnestije, kot dve popolnoma različni obliki odpusta; s pomilostitvijo, ne glede na njeno obliko, se odpušča samo izvrševanje kazni, medtem ko se z amnestijo briše tudi obsodbo. Drugi model pa pravno ne razlikuje teh dveh institutov, vendar je v pravo pomilostitve vključena tudi amnestija, saj poznajo države common law tudi generalno pomilostitev ( general pardon ), ki praktično ustreza ''evropski'' definiciji amnestije. V tem modelu služi pomilostitev za niz različnih ciljev, za katere je evropski model razvil posebne institute, na primer revizijo, ki jo kot procesno ustanovo države common law ne poznajo. Glede na polivalentnost instituta je težko določiti tudi samo pravno naravo slednjega. V formalnem smislu je govora o individualnem pravnem aktu, kot diskrecijski oblasti upravnopravne narave, katerega učinek je neekstenziven, vendar erga omnes. Veliko težje je podati definicijo materialnega pojmovanja, saj si tudi stroka ni enotna. O zakonodajni naravi ne moremo govoriti, ker se s pomilostitvijo niti ne spreminja niti ne ukinja občo pravno normo, temveč samo suspendira njeno uporabo. Sodni akt ni, ker se ne izdaja nobene nove odločbe, prav tako ostaja konstatacija sodišča o krivdi nedotaknjena, čeprav drži, da se s pomilostitvijo poseže v najpomembnejši del odločbe, odmero kazni. Z ohranitvijo instituta pomilostitve želi država slediti najrazličnejšim ciljem; od državno-političnih, do odprave sodnih napak, zaradi načela pravičnosti in ohranjanja stabilnosti veljavnega kazenskopravnega sistema. Sama sem seveda mnenja, da je možno tem istim ciljem zadostiti tudi z drugimi instrumenti v okviru pravnih sredstev. V ta namen imamo v sodobnih demokratičnih državah na voljo obnovo postopka pa tudi izredno omilitev kazni, zaradi katere je možno napasti tudi pravnomočno sodno odločbo, pri čemer bo sodišče tisto, ki bo ponovno odmerilo kazen, upoštevaje okoliščine, ki so zanje relevantne in se redno preverjajo v postopku dokazovanja. Kazen je možno omiliti oziroma prilagoditi tudi naknadno s pogojnim odpustom, če se tekom njenega izvrševanja izkaže, da si ga je obsojenec 'zaslužil' oziroma, da ni več potrebe, da bi se kazen še naprej vršila v obstoječi obliki. Zaradi načela pravičnosti in gotovosti kazni sem mnenja, da je primernejša od pomilostitve uporaba prav teh sredstev. Upravičenost obstoja instituta je potrebno presojati znotraj vsakokratne kaznovalne politike, ki se odraža v ureditvi kazenske zakonodaje, ki se od časa do časa spreminja. Ravno antični sistem kaznovanja je namreč, zaradi svoje krutosti in surovosti ter drugačnemu pojmovanju funkcije kazni, spodbudil potrebo po tem institutu. Z razvojem prava, k
Keywords:	pomilostitev, pristojnost predsednika države, sistemi milosti, amnestija, abolicija, pogojni odpust, izredna omilitev kazni, instituti modernih kazenskih zakonodaj, diskrecijska pravica, kaznovalna politika, načelo pravičnosti, načelo zakonitosti
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Publisher:	[N. Kleva]
Year of publishing:	2012
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-38524
UDC:	343.292(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:	4427307
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:PBP6KUGX
Publication date in DKUM:	17.12.2012
Views:	2664
Downloads:	307
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:	Pardon - The necessity of the institute in the modern criminal law systems
Abstract:	The essence, the function of the pardon and its placement in the law can be only understood from a historical perspective and because of this it is necessary to follow its formation and development from its early stages until today. The institute of pardon had served in different law systems to different functions; from the mitigation of the rigidity of criminal law, especially the replacement of the death penalty for milder ones, until the rejection of the criminal liability of subjects unfit for judicial decisions and ultimately, because of certain social-political interests. Traditionally, the pardon was used by the Ruler in his exercise of his sovereign powers which were as much larger as was stronger the bond between him and his serfs. He strengthened the latter also by demonstrating grace and generosity. Today this form of “royal law” is used lesser and lesser, since every pardon must have a rational goal. The institute of pardon it is an integral part of the constitutional scheme of all jurisdictions. In legal systems of different kinds the functions of such institute is polyvalent, indicating that this is a complex and sensitive instrument. Comparatively speaking, the discretionary decision belongs to the Chief of the State or to the highest executive body, very few countries had awarded this “right” to the legislative branch and none to the judiciary one. Thus two models of pardon law have developed; the European and the Anglo-Saxon. The first one, from a legal point of view, strictly separates clemency from amnesty, as two absolutely different types of redundancy; the clemency, regardless of its form, pardons only the enforcement of the sentence itself, while the amnesty wipes the conviction, too. The other model on the other part, legally does not distinguish between these two institutes, but includes in the law of pardon also the amnesty, as common law countries accept also the general pardon (general pardon), which practically corresponds to the ''European'' definition of amnesty. In this model the amnesty is used for a different range of objectives, for which the European model developed special institutes, such as the review, that are unknown in the common law countries as a procedural institution. Since the polyvalence of the institution it is difficult to determine its legal nature itself. In formal terms, we are talking about an individual legal act, as a discretionary power of an administrative nature, with a non extensive but an erga omnes effect. It is much more difficult to give a substantive definition of the concept, as the profession itself it is not united in the matter. We cannot speak about a legislative nature since the pardon does not change nor eliminates the common legal norm but only suspends its use. It is not a juridical act, since no new decision was issued, also the Court perception about guilt remains untouched, although it is true that the act of pardon intervene on the most important part of the decision, the assessment of penalties. With the maintenance of the institute of pardon, the State wants to follow a wide variety of objectives; from the state-political ones to the abolition of judicial errors, because of the principle of justice and the maintenance of the stability of the current criminal justice system. I surly believe that is possible to follow these same objectives also with other instruments in the limits of the existing legal solutions. For these purposes modern democratic countries have on their disposition the retrial and also the extraordinary mitigation of punishment that can also attack the final judgment, where the Court will be the one to re-determine the penalty, taking in to account the circumstances, relevant for them and that are regularly checked during the procedure of taking evidence. The penalty can be mitigated or adjusted also with a subsequent conditional discharge, if during its execution come to evidence that the convicted had 'earned' it or that the necessity of the further execution of the penalty in the existing form does n
Keywords:	pardon, competence of the President, systems of grace, amnesty, abolition, probation, extraordinary mitigation of punishment, modern institutes of criminal law, right of discretion, punishment policy

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back