|Opis:||The diploma work deals with the topic of women's protection in the criminal field. The purpose of the task is to highlight the position of a woman in the field of criminal law, to present examples when a woman acted as a perpetrator of crime and, on the other hand, as a victim. As an objective, I set out to use the sources to identify the status of a woman in the rules that were in use in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia at the end of the middle and at the beginning of the new century. Also, one of the goals was to break the "stigma," which considered that the woman was neglected and that her abuse was something of everyday life.
For the late Middle Ages and the beginning of the new century, the general conviction was that the criminal law was not written, that it was often tried according to the will of the judge and that torture was something of everyday life. Through the research, I found out that the records of the standardization of law and criminal offenses date back to the 14th century, namely through the statues in Ptuj from 1376 and 1513, we find that important criminal offenses and punishment were already determined at that time. This is also supported by the Ljubljana Penal Court of 1514, where crimes were listed and the punishment process itself. For the survey, I also used the CCC of 1532 and tried to draw parallels with the previously mentioned sources. In the mentioned period, an important role also represented the status of victim and perpetrator. Privileged persons could easily relieve their liability and pay cash compensation instead of torture. The subordinates often found themselves on pendulums, were bumped on a wheel, drowned or burned at the stakes. In that time, the inquisitorial procedure was characterized, with which the defendants were not granted the rights that the defendant has on the basis of the Constitution and other statutory regulations today. In performing its role, the Court was not impartial since it was actively involved in the proceedings in the judicial process. It was also not objective, as the procedure started on the basis of the guilt assumption. The recognition was often accompanied by torture, which was considered the Queen of Evidence. In today's order, recognition of the use of force, threat, cunning or medical intervention is determined that it can not be used against a defendant in the process itself, and the procedure can only begin if there is a sufficient standard of evidence known as a reasonable suspicion.
The development of society and mentality also changes the law. We are no longer talking about deliberately causing suffering and intimidation through torture. Cruel corporal punishments replace most of the alternative sentences which pursue the aim of the resocialization of the perpetrator and allow him to reintegrate into the environment. The penalties in the past were based on revenge and sentencing. "What you did, it was reflected through punishment."|