| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:Institut neprištevnosti z vidika sodne prakse in stališč ljudi : magistrsko delo
Authors:ID Brecelj, Maria (Author)
ID Žaberl, Miroslav (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
ID Erčulj, Vanja (Co-mentor)
Files:.pdf MAG_Brecelj_Maria_2023.pdf (1,03 MB)
MD5: 95AF56D545900E7BF186D102A8815259
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:FVV - Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security
Abstract:Institut neprištevnosti je eden osnovnih institutov v kazenskem pravu. Njegova pomembnost in kompleksnost se kaže v množici različnih disciplin, ki morajo med seboj sodelovati že pri sami definiciji in v njegovi praksi. V največji meri je vzpostavljeno sodelovanje s sodnimi izvedenci psihološke in psihiatrične stroke za pomoč pri ocenjevanju prištevnosti obdolženca. Skozi raziskavo sodne prakse je bilo ugotovljeno, da je največkrat vzrok za dosojeno neprištevnost duševna motnja oz. duševna bolezen. Vzrok osebnostne motnje je bil za neprištevnost upoštevan le izjemoma, med tem ko je bil v skoraj polovici primerov vseh neprištevnih, v kombinaciji s katero koli motnjo, vzrok tudi vpliv drog ali alkohola. Za prevladujoče vzroke neprištevnosti so se torej izkazale duševne bolezni ter z alkoholom in drogami povezane začasne duševne motnje. Kjer je bila potreba po mnenju sodnega izvedenca, je bil v večini primerov klican le en sodni izvedenec psihiatrične stroke. Iz sodne prakse se je izkazalo, da sodni izvedenec psiholog samostojno v nobenem primeru ni zadostoval kriterijem za celostno in dokončno presojo o duševnem stanju obdolženca. V vseh primerih, kjer sta bila dva izvedenca, sta bili njuni mnenji enotni. Iz analize pritožbenih razlogov je bilo mogoče razbrati, da so se v vseh analiziranih judikatih, razen v enemu, različni razlogi nanašali na prištevnost. Skozi analizo stališč ljudi je bilo ugotovljeno, da imajo udeleženci o neprištevnih osebah negativno mnenje in jih vidijo kot nevarne, nepredvidljive ljudi, z nizko samokontrolo. Kljub temu so udeleženci v primerih lažjih kaznivih dejanj bolj nagnjeni h kaznovanju prištevnega storilca kot neprištevnega. Preko prepoznave prištevnosti storilca skozi resnično zgodbo se je izkazalo, da so udeleženci v več kot 50 % primerov enako ugotovili prištevnost opisanega storilca, kot jo je dosodilo sodišče.
Keywords:neprištevnost, sodna praksa, percepcija, stališča, duševne motnje, magistrska dela
Place of publishing:Ljubljana
Place of performance:Ljubljana
Publisher:[M. Brecelj]
Year of publishing:2023
Year of performance:2023
Number of pages:VII f., [89] str.
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-84269 New window
UDC:343.1:616.89(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:152528387 New window
Publication date in DKUM:18.05.2023
Views:322
Downloads:36
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:FVV
:
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.

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:11.05.2023

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Criminal insanity from the point of view of judicial practice and people's opinions
Abstract:Criminal insanity is one of the basic statues in criminal law. Its importance and complexity is shown in the multitude of disciplines that it takes to define and use it in judicial practice. Courts mostly work with expert witnesses from the field of psychiatry and psychology to help them appraise the defendant's sanity at the time of the offence. Our research's findings showed that in most cases the reason for criminal insanity was mental disorder or mental illness. Personality disorder was accepted only as an exception, while alcohol or drugs were in combination with mental disorder as a reason for criminal insanity in almost half of our analyzed cases where the defendant was found criminally insane. Prevalent reasons for criminal insanity were therefore mental illnesses, as well as alcohol and drug related temporal mental disorders. When there was a need for expert opinion in court cases, at most one psychiatric expert witness was called. Surprisingly from judicial practice, it was found that an expert opinion from a psychologist was never enough on its own to form a proper assessment of the defendant's sanity. In all cases where there were more than one expert witness, their opinions were in line with each other. Our analysis of grounds of appeal showed that in all cases but one, different grounds were used to question the defendant's sanity. Through the analysis of our experiment it was shown that our participants have negative opinion about defenders who are found criminally insane. They see them as dangerous, unpredictable, and with low self-control. Despite that, participants tend to punish criminally insane offenders of smaller crimes less than the sane ones. Through the recognition of sanity including true cases, our participants assessed the sanity of the presented offenders the same as the Court did in more than 50 % of cases.
Keywords:criminal insanity, judical practice, people's opinion, mental disorder


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