| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:Funkciji odkrivanja in pregona kaznivih dejanj ter njun medsebojni odnos
Authors:ID Ilić, Tamara (Author)
ID Dežman, Zlatan (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UN_Ilic_Tamara_2016.pdf (870,22 KB)
MD5: 6079E38CDE51A40BB16D10D5E47B7237
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Undergraduate thesis
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Funkciji odkrivanja in pregona kaznivih dejanj sta v pristojnosti dveh različnih, samostojnih organov – policije kot organa odkrivanja in državnega tožilstva kot organa pregona kaznivih dejanj. Oba delujeta z istim ciljem uspešnega boja proti kriminaliteti, kar jima omogočajo zakonsko natančno določena pooblastila, na podlagi katerih opravljata vsak svoje aktivnosti. Stičišče obeh funkcij je t. i. predkazenski postopek, katerega subjekt je poleg policije in državnega tožilstva tudi preiskovalni sodnik. Predkazenski postopek kot prva faza predhodnega postopka se začne, če so podani razlogi za sum, da je bilo storjeno kaznivo dejanje, ki se preganja po uradni dolžnosti. Subjekti predkazenskega postopka pri tem opravljajo t. i. predprocesna dejanja. Policija, ki največkrat prva izve za storjeno kaznivo dejanje, opravlja v predkazenskem postopku operativno˗taktično dejavnost, z namenom, da bi odkrila kaznivo dejanje in njenega storilca ter zbrala dovolj informacij, ki so državnemu tožilcu potrebne za odločitev ali bo sprožil kazenski pregon ali da kaznivega dejanja ne bo preganjal. Poleg neformalnih dejanj opravlja policija tudi nekatera formalna dejanja, ki lahko imajo dokazno vrednost v kazenskem postopku. Dominus litis predkazenskega postopka je državni tožilec, saj mora biti obveščen o vseh kaznivih dejanjih, ki se preganjajo po uradni dolžnosti, policijsko preiskovanje pa sme usmerjati z navodili, mnenji in predlogi. Preiskovalni sodnik v predkazenskem postopku vse bolj nastopa kot sodnik garant in ne kot aktiven preiskovalni organ. Odloča o izvedbi preiskovalnih dejanj policije ali o uporabi ukrepov, s katerimi policija posega v človekove pravice in svoboščine. Končni izid predkazenskega postopka je tako odvisen od skupnega dela vseh njegovih subjektov. Medsebojni odnos med policijo in državnim tožilcem se vzpostavi v predkazenskem postopku, predvsem pri kaznivih dejanjih zoper gospodarstvo, pri organiziranem kriminalu in pri težjih kaznivih dejanjih splošne kriminalitete. Zakon o kazenskem postopku ga ureja kot usmerjanje predkazenskega postopka, vendar ima širši pomen. Je zbir vseh možnih interakcij med policijo in državnim tožilcem v predkazenskem postopku. Policisti in državni tožilci se pri njihovem skupnem delu soočajo z nekaterimi težavami, ki med drugim izhajajo iz raziskave Inštituta za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani in ki vplivajo na uspešnost policijskega preiskovanja kaznivih dejanj, kot so npr. slabo obrazloženi predlogi policistov, slabo obrazložene tožilčeve zahteve, nezadostno povratno informiranje policistov o zadevah, ki jih usmerja državni tožilec, slaba komunikacija med policisti in tožilci. Predkazenski postopek kot ga poznamo danes, je bil vzpostavljen leta 1967. Številne spremembe prvega slovenskega Zakona o kazenskem postopku iz leta 1994 so počasi rušile idejno zasnovo kazenskega in s tem tudi predkazenskega postopka, zaradi česar kazenski postopek naj ne bi bil več konsistenten, saj so ga novele potiskale v bolj akuzatorno smer, medtem ko naše kazensko procesno pravo temelji na modelu mešanega kazenskega postopka. Posledično obstajajo težnje po novem modelu kazenskega postopka in tako Ministrstvo za pravosodje že dalj časa pripravlja osnutek novega Zakona o kazenskem postopku. Z vidika predkazenskega postopka bi predlagani model pomenil odpravo preiskovalnega sodnika in uvedbo policijsko˗tožilske preiskave. V literaturi obstajajo stališča za in stališča proti uvedbi takšne preiskave.
Keywords:predkazenski postopek, policija, državno tožilstvo, predprocesna dejanja, medsebojni odnos med policijo in državnim tožilcem, usmerjanje predkazenskega postopka, Zakon o kazenskem postopku, osnutek Zakona o kazenskem postopku, policijsko˗tožilska preiskava
Place of publishing:Maribor
Publisher:[T. Ilić]
Year of publishing:2016
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-63630 New window
UDC:343.9(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:5407275 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:1QNQZZ6F
Publication date in DKUM:18.11.2016
Views:2122
Downloads:161
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL 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:The Functions of Detection and Prosecution of Criminal Offences and their Interrelation
Abstract:Detection functions and prosecution of criminal offenses are under the jurisdiction of two different, independent authorities – the police as an detection authority and a state prosecutor office as a law enforcement authority against criminal offenses. Both authorities work with the same goal of a successful fight against crime. The specific statutory powers to take enforcement action make them possible to pursue their activities. Two functions junction is so called pre˗trial investigation process of which actor is, in addition to the police and the public prosecutor's office, also the investigating judge. The pre˗trial investigation, as the first phase of the pre˗trial procedure, begins, if there are reasons to suspect that the criminal offense was committed, which is prosecuted ex officio. Actors of the pre˗trial investigation perform so called pre˗processing actions. Often, the police is first aware of the criminal offense. Within the pre˗trial investigation it carries out the pre˗trial operational˗tactical activity in order to detect the criminal offense, its perpetrator and to gather enough information for the state prosecutor to decide whether to initiate criminal prosecution or the criminal offense will not be prosecuted. In addition to informal acts, the police also performs certain procedural actions that may have probative value in the criminal procedures. Dominus litis of the pre˗trial investigation is the state prosecutor's office, as it must be informed of all criminal offenses that are prosecuted ex officio and it may direct the police investigation with instructions, feedback and suggestions. The investigating judge in pre˗trial investigation acts more increasingly as a guarantor judge and not as an active investigation authority. It decides to carry out the investigative actions by the police or the measures application for police to interfere with human rights and freedoms. The final outcome of the pre˗trial investigation depends on the joint work of all its actors. The interrelation between the police and state prosecutor's office is established in the pre˗trial investigation, particularly in criminal acts against the economy, at organized crime acts and at serious criminal offenses of general crime. The Criminal Procedure Act (further as CPA) regulates the pre˗trial investigation by directing the pre˗trial procedure, but this term is described as too narrow. It is a compilation of all the possible interactions between police and state prosecutor's office in the pre˗trial investigation. In their combined operations, police and state prosecutors are facing a number of difficulties resulting from the research of the Institute for Criminology of Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, which are affecting the success of the police criminal investigations, such as poorly reasoned proposals by the policemen, poorly reasoned requests of the state prosecutor, state prosecutor's insufficient feedback information to the police on issues guided by the state prosecutor, and poor communication among police officers and state prosecutors. The pre˗trial investigation as we know it today was in place since 1967. A number of modifications of the first Slovenian CPA of 1994 were slowly destroying the conceptual design of CPA and thus the pre˗trial investigation, resulting the inconsistency, since the amendments have pushed it into more accusatory direction, while our criminal procedural law is based on a mixed model of criminal procedure. Consequently, there are tendencies towards a new model of criminal procedure and thus the Ministry of justice has been preparing a new draft of CPA for a longer period of time. In terms of pre˗trial investigation, the proposed model is to eliminate the investigating judge and to introduce the police and state prosecutorial investigation. In the literature, there can be found aspirations for as well as against the imposition of such an investigation.
Keywords:pre˗trial investigation, police, state prosecutor's office, pre˗processing acts, interrelation between the police and state prosecutor, directing pre˗trial investigation, Criminal Procedure Act, draft of Criminal Procedure Act, police and prosecution investigation


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