| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Institut neprištevnosti in njegova uporaba v sodni praksi : magistrsko delo
Authors:Majhen, Patricija (Author)
Šepec, Miha (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Majhen_Patricija_2019.pdf (879,94 KB)
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Prištevnost je pravni izraz za psihološko stanje storilca kaznivega dejanja, ki se je v trenutku storitve tega dejanja zavedal posledic in kazenske odgovornosti za storjeno dejanje. O neprištevnosti govorimo, ko storilec v času izvršitve dejanja zaradi duševne motnje ali duševne manjrazvitosti ni mogel razumeti njegovega pomena oziroma svojega ravnanja ni mogel obvladovati. V tovrstnih primerih ne moremo govoriti o storitvi kaznivega dejanja, ampak zgolj o storitvi protipravnega dejanja, saj morajo biti za obstoj kaznivega dejanja kumulativno izpolnjeni vsi elementi – človekovo voljno ravnanje, bit kaznivega dejanja, protipravnost in krivda. Neprišteven storilec pa za storjeno dejanje ni kriv, zato zoper takega storilca sodišče izda oprostilno sodbo. Neprišteven storilec je lahko kriv za storjeno dejanje zgolj v primeru, ko si sam povzroči neprištevnost z uporabo alkohola, drog, drugih psihoaktivnih snovi ali kako drugače. Za storjeno kaznivo dejanje pa je kriv le, če se ugotovi, da je bila pred tem za izvršeno dejanje podana njegova krivda, ki jo zakon določa za to dejanje. V tem primeru sodišče zoper storilca izda obsodilno sodbo ter mu izreče dejanju primerno kazensko sankcijo. Govorimo o institutu actio libera in causa oziroma o dejanjih, ki so svobodna v odločitvi, ne pa v izvršitvi. Med stanjem prištevnosti in stanjem neprištevnosti pa obstaja več vmesnih stanj, storilec je tako lahko tudi zmanjšano prišteven. Pravno relevantno je zgolj stanje bistveno zmanjšane prištevnosti na podlagi duševne motnje, duševne manjrazvitosti ali kakšne druge trajne in hude duševne motenosti, ki pa ne izključuje krivde storilca. Bistveno zmanjšano prišteven storilec je kriv za storjeno kaznivo dejanje, zato mu sodišče izreče obsodilno sodbo. Dejstvo, da je dejanje izvršil v stanju bistveno zmanjšane prištevnosti, ima sodišče možnost upoštevati le v višini izrečene kazni, na način, da mu le-to omili. Zakon duševnih motenj, ki lahko predstavljajo vzrok neprištevnosti ne določa taksativno, zaradi obstoja prevelikega števila duševnih motenj ter nepoznavanja psihiatrične stroke, prav tako pa sama duševna motnja še ne pomeni obstoja neprištevnosti. Če se ugotovi obstoj določene duševne motnje pri storilcu, je potrebno presoditi, kako je ta vplivala na storilčev stik z realnostjo v času izvršitve dejanja. Storilec lahko ima namreč določeno duševno motnjo, ki pa na njegovo izvršitev kaznivega dejanja ni vplivala. Neprištevnost je konkretna situacija, ki se jo ovrednoti pri vsakem posameznem dejanju. Za ugotavljanje dejstva, ali je bila storilčeva prištevnost v času izvršitve kaznivega dejanja izključena ali zmanjšana, ima sodišče možnost odrediti izvedenca psihiatrične stroke, ki na podlagi psihiatričnega pregleda obdolženca poda izvid in mnenje o njegovem duševnem stanju. V primeru, ko pa obramba pri sodišču vzbudi sum o storilčevi neprištevnosti ali bistveno zmanjšani prištevnosti v času izvršitve kaznivega dejanja, pa je odreditev izvedenca psihiatrične stroke celo obligatorna. Sodišče, ki se ukvarja zgolj s pravno znanostjo, namreč nima zadostnega znanja, da bi samo presojalo o zadevah, ki sodijo na področje psihiatrije, zato mora za tovrstno mnenje prositi stroko, ki se s tem ukvarja. Če tekom dokaznega postopka na podlagi izvida in mnenja izvedenca psihiatra sodišče ugotovi, da je bil storilec v času izvršitve kaznivega dejanja neprišteven, mu ne sme izreči kazni, saj zanj ni kriv. Zakon pa dopušča možnost, da se taki osebi izrečejo posebni prisilni ukrepi kurativne narave, katerih namen je zdravljenje duševno abnormne osebe, ki utegne biti nevarna za okolico, saj se zgolj na tak način lahko doseže prevencija storitve in ponavljanja hujših kaznivih dejanj. Govorimo o varnostnem ukrepu obveznega psihiatričnega zdravljenja v zdravstvenem zavodu in varnostnem ukrepu obveznega psihiatričnega zdravljenja na prostosti, ki se lahko izrečeta tako neprištevnemu, kot bistveno zmanjšano prištevnemu storilcu.
Keywords:kaznivo dejanje, protipravno dejanje, kazenska odgovornost, krivda, neprištevnost, bistveno zmanjšana prištevnost, actio libera in causa, psihiatrično izvedenstvo, varnostni ukrep
Year of publishing:2019
Place of performance:[S. l.
Publisher:P. Majhen]
Number of pages:69 str.
Source:Maribor
UDC:343.91.056.34(043.3)
COBISS_ID:5744939 Link is opened in a new window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:HJGMVCLR
License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
This work is available under this license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International
Views:250
Downloads:43
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

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:Institute of insanity and its use in case - law
Abstract:Sanity is a legal term for the psychological state of the criminal offender, who was aware of the consequences and criminal liability of his act while committing a crime. We talk about insanity when the offender, while committing a crime, because of a mental disorder or lack of mental development, could not understand the prohibition of his actions or is unable to manage his behavior. In these cases, we can not talk about commiting a crime, but only about commiting illegal act, because for criminal offense there need to cumulativly exist all four elements –humans willingness to act, legal signs of a crime, illegal act and guilt. Offender, who is insane, is not guilty for his act, therefore the court must issue a verdict of not guilty. Insane offender can be guilty for his act only when he causes the insanity himself by using alcohol, drugs, psychoactive substances or on any other way. However, he is guilty for his act only, if the court finds that the guilt, which is determined by law fort this act, existed prior to that action. In this case, the court shall issue a conviction judgment against the offender and impose an appropriate sentence on the offense. We are talking about the institute of actio libera in causa. There are many intermediate states between the state of sanity and the state of insanity, the offenders judgment can thus be also only impaired. Legaly relevant is only the state of significantly impaired judgment that is caused by mental disorder, lack of mental development or any other permanent and severe mental disturbance. Offender, whos judgement while committing a crime was significantly impaired, is guilty for his actions, which is why the court pronounces a conviction judgment. Because the crime was committed in a state of significantly impaired judgement, the court has the option to take into consideration the amount of the sentence imposed, in such a way that it is reduced. The law does not provide the mental disorders that can be the cause of insanity with taxation, because of the existence of an excessive number of mental disorders and the lack of knowledge of the psychiatric profession, and also because the mental disorder itself does not mean the existence of insanity. If the existence of a particular mental disorder is detected in the offender, it is necessary to assess how this affected his contact with reality during the time of committing the act. The offender may have a certain mental disorder, which did not affect his execution of the crime. Insanity is a concrete situation that is evaluated individually in every single case. In determining the fact whether the offenders sanity was excluded or reduced, the court has the option of appointing a psychiatric expert who, on the basis of the psychiatric examination of the defendant, gives an report and opinion on his mental state. In cases where the defense at the court raises a suspicion of the offender's insanity or significantly impaired judgement, the appointment of an psychiatric expert is even obligatory. A court dealing solely with legal science does not have sufficient knowledge to judge matters that fall within the field of psychiatry, and must ask for opinion the profession, which deals with this questions. If during the evidence procedure the court establishes that the offender was insane while committing the crime, it can not impose a sentence on him, since he is not guilty for it. The law allows the possibility of imposing special safety measures on a person which have a curative nature and its purpose is to cure a mentally abnormal person who may be dangerous, because only this way we can achieve the prevention or repetition of serious crimes by the offender. We are talking about a safety measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment in a health institution and a security measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment at liberty that can be pronounced to insane offender, and also to a offender whos judgement is significantly impaired.
Keywords:criminal offense, illegal act, criminal liability, guilt, insanity, significantly impaired judgement, actio libera in causa, psychiatric expert, safety measure


Comments

Leave comment

You have to 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