Inkriminacija posilstva v Sloveniji in ustreznost novih modelov soglasja kot alternative modela prisile : magistrsko delo

Božič, David

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Inkriminacija posilstva v Sloveniji in ustreznost novih modelov soglasja kot alternative modela prisile : magistrsko delo
Authors:	ID Božič, David (Author) ID Dežman, Zlatko (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	MAG_Bozic_David_2020.pdf (1,32 MB) MD5: 7AAE53EE31CE825CA156ADBB3129CB98 PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/72a63260-a968-4c01-8f6a-caec92bd9323
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	V magistrski diplomski nalogi obravnavam starejši in sodobni pogled spolnega kazenskega prava, v katerem je osrednja pozornost tako z vidika zakonodaje, teorije kot slovenske sodne prakse s posameznimi primerjalnopravnimi pogledi namenjena posilstvu kot najhujši obliki kaznivega dejanja zoper spolno nedotakljivost. Pozornost je na začetku usmerjena v kratek zgodovinski pregled, ker zgodovinsko gledano model prisile sega vse do časa rimskega prava, ko je bilo prisilno spolno nožnično občevanje stuprum violentum zajeto v relativno široko zastavljenem kaznivem dejanju, imen. nasilno zadovoljevanje spolnega nagona, do najpomembnejših zakonikov germanskih dežel, ki so pomembno vplivali na normativno ureditev kazenskega prava pri nas. V teoriji spolnega kazenskega prava, predvsem po zaslugi nemških kazenskopravnih dogmatikov v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, je pojem spolna samoodločba posameznika ali kar spolna samoodločba eden najvidnejših. Ta kot fenomen v zadnjih desetletjih zelo opazno prodre v ospredje kazenskopravnih dobrin spolnih kaznivih dejanj. Zdi se, da v veljavnem slovenskem Kazenskem zakoniku (KZ-1) funkcijo spolne samoodločbe posameznika opravlja pojem spolne nedotakljivosti, vendar je izraz nedotakljivost neustrezen, ker vsebinsko precej po nepotrebnem na pojmovni ravni vnaša v zakonodajo nekakšno tabuizacijo prav pri spolnosti, kar z vidika harmoničnosti, sistemskosti in logičnosti posebnega dela preseneča in moti, ker zakonodajalec pri drugih osebnih dobrinah ne govori o nedotakljivosti. Tradicionalno spolno kazensko pravo, ki temelji na modelu prisile, za obstoj kaznivega dejanja zahteva, da storilec žrtev prisili k spolnemu občevanju ali drugemu spolnemu ravnanju tako, da uporabi silo in ji zagrozi z neposrednim napadom na življenje ali telo. Prisilno ravnanje storilca mora biti na ustrezen način psevdokavzalno povezano s spolnim ravnanjem (zgodovinsko starejše »fizično nasilje« imenovano sila in zgodovinsko mlajša »grožnja [s fizičnim nasiljem]«). Model prisile od žrtve zahteva, da se storilcu upira, kjer mora biti odpor resen in ne posledica sramu ali družbeno pričakovane oblike upiranja, poznane tudi kot »simbolično upiranje«. V nasprotnem primeru kaznivo dejanje ni podano. Takšno upiranje od žrtve zahteva, da se še huje izpostavi nevarnosti, čeprav že od začetka ve, da jo bo storilec fizično nadvladal. Konvencija Sveta Evrope o preprečevanju in boju proti nasilju nad ženskami in nasilju v družini, t. i. Istanbulska konvencija, zahteva, da postane pomanjkanje soglasja »center« pravnih definicij posilstva in ostalih oblik spolnega nasilja ter tako opustijo zahtevo po uporabi (fizične) sile. Novejša modela soglasja zato zagotavljata neposredno varstvo spolne avtonomije z zahtevo po zavrnitvi (model »ne pomeni ne«) ali privolitvi (model »ja pomeni ja«). Modela ne zahtevata sile, s katero je mogoče zlomiti odpor žrtve, vendar so ti slogani lahko zavajajoči in pretirano poenostavljajo kompleksno teorijo.
Keywords:	spolno kazensko pravo, spolni delikti, spolna samoodločba, posilstvo, spolno prisiljenje, nasilje, grožnja, privolitev
Place of publishing:	[Maribor
Place of performance:	[Maribor
Publisher:	D. Božič]
Year of publishing:	2020
Number of pages:	43 f.
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-76448
UDC:	343.1/.123.1(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:	20054275
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:XCJ8YJGT
Publication date in DKUM:	18.06.2020
Views:	1625
Downloads:	415
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.

Licences

License:	CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Link:	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:	The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:	26.05.2020

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	Incrimination of rape in Slovenia and suitability of new consent models as alternatives to the coercion model
Abstract:	This master's thesis presents both the old and modern view of sexual criminal law, where the main focus, from the point of legislation, theory, and the Slovenian case law with individual comparative legal views, is dedicated to rape, as the most serious form of crime against sexual integrity. A brief historical overview is first presented, as the coercion model historically dates back to the Roman law, when forced vaginal sexual intercourse stuprum violentum was covered by the relatively wide-ranging crimes falling under violent gratification of the sexual urge, as well as to the most important codes of the Germanic lands, which significantly influenced the normative regulation of criminal law in Slovenia. Thanks especially to the German criminal law dogmatists of the 1970s, the notion of individual sexual self-determination is one of the most prominent in the theory of sexual criminal law. In recent decades, this phenomenon has very prominently featured at the forefront of investigating sexual offenses. In the current Slovenian Criminal Code (KZ-1), individual sexual self-determination seems to be exercised by the concept of sexual inviolability, but the term »untouchability« is inappropriate, since it substantially and unnecessarily introduces a kind of taboo into the legislation on sexuality. In terms of the harmonious, systematic, and logical nature of the special part is surprising and disturbing because the legislation does not address inviolability with other personal goods. Traditional sexual criminal law, based on the coercion model, requires the existence of a crime to compel the victim to commit sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct by using force and threatening a victim with direct assault on their life or body. The perpetrator's coercive behavior must be appropriately, pseudo-causally linked to sexual conduct (historically the older »physical violence« known as force and historically the more recent »threat [with physical violence]«). The coercion model requires the victim to resist the offender, where resistance must be serious and not merely a socially expected form of resistance, also known as »token resistance«. Otherwise, no crime is committed. Such resistance requires the victim to be even more exposed to danger, even though they know from a priori that the perpetrator will physically overcome it. The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, i.e. the Istanbul Convention, calls for the lack of consent to become the »center« of legal definitions of rape and other forms of sexual violence, thus abandoning the requirement to use (physical) force. Therefore, newer consent models provide direct protection for sexual autonomy by requiring rejection (»no means no« model) or consent (»yes means yes« model). The models do not require force to break the victim's resistance, but these slogans can be misleading and over-simplify complex theory.
Keywords:	sexual criminal law, sexual offenses, sexual self-determination, rape, sexual duress, violence, threat, consent

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back