Modeli kazenskopravne ureditve spolnih deliktov s primerjalnopravno analizo

magistrsko delo

Lea Lepoša (Author), Miha Šepec (Mentor)

Abstract

Temeljna vrednota, ki jo varuje spolno kazensko pravo je spolna avtonomija oziroma spolna samoodločba, ki posamezniku daje pravico, da svobodno odloča o svojem spolnem življenju. Kot mehanizmi varovanja te dobrine so se skozi zgodovino razvili trije različni modeli kazenskopravne ureditve spolnih deliktov, to so model prisile, model "ne pomeni ne" in model "ja pomeni ja". Model prisile je model, ki za kaznivost spolnega dejanja zahteva uporabo sile ali grožnje, žrtvi pa z zahtevo po uporu nalaga dolžnost aktivnega ravnanja. Takšna zahteva se iz vidika žrtve zdi neupravičena in nerazumna, saj žrtve varuje predvsem pred prisilo, medtem ko v ozadje postavlja pomen varovanja posameznikove pravice do spolne samoodločbe. Uporaba prisilitvenega ravnanja za obstoj dejanskega posega v posameznikovo spolno avtonomijo namreč ni nujna. Kot odgovor na zastarel in neustrezen model prisile sta se pojavila modela soglasja, ki z zahtevo po izraženem nesoglasju oziroma soglasju žrtve neposredno varujeta posameznikovo spolno avtonomijo. Tako za model "ne pomeni ne" kot za model "ja pomeni ja" je značilno, da se upošteva le navzven izražena volja žrtve, v primeru prvega kot izraz nesoglasja, ter v slednjem, kot izraz soglasja. Čeprav model "ja pomeni ja" pozornost posveča predvsem žrtvi, od katere več ne zahteva izraženega nesoglasja ali upiranja storilcu, temveč (le) izraz privolitve, pa gre po mnenju nekaterih kritikov v tem primeru za obrnjeno dokazno breme, s čimer se poseže v domnevo nedolžnosti. Kakor hitro namreč zakon zahteva nesoglasje bo kakršen koli dvom v obstoj nesoglasja vodil do oprostilne sodbe. V kolikor pa zakon zahteva privolitev pa bo dvom v obstoj privolitve samo še dodatno okrepil stališče tožilstva, da je obtoženec kriv. Iz primerjalnopravne analize izhaja postopno prehajanje kazenskopravnih sistemov iz modela prisile na katerega izmed modelov soglasja. Za slovensko in finsko kazensko pravo je sicer še vedno značilen model prisile, se pa v obeh državah že kažejo težnje po reformi spolnega kazenskega prava. Model prisile so opustili na Švedskem, kjer so sprejeli model "ja pomeni ja", pri katerem je bistvenega pomena, da druga oseba (žrtev) pri spolnem odnosu ne sodeluje prostovoljno. Model "ja pomeni ja" je uzakonjen tudi v Angliji, Walesu in na Hrvaškem, medtem ko je v Nemčiji prevzet model "ne pomeni ne".

Keywords

model prisile;"ne pomeni ne";"ja pomeni ja";spolni delikt;spolno ravnanje;privolitev;spolna samoodločba;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2020
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	L. Lepoša]
UDC:	343.541(043.3)
COBISS:	26067203
Views:	556
Downloads:	228
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Models of criminal law regulation of sexual offenses with comparative legal analysis
Secondary abstract:	The fundamental value protected by sexual criminal law is sexual autonomy or sexual self-determination, which gives an individual the right to freely decide on their sexual life. As mechanisms of protection of this right, three different models of criminal law regulation of sexual offenses have developed through history, namely the coercion model, the "no means no" model and the "yes means yes" model. The coercion model requires the use of force or threat for the sexual act to be criminal and imposes a duty of active action on the victim by requesting resistance. From the victim's point of view, such a request seems unjustified and, above all, unreasonable, as it protects the victim primarily from coercion while neglecting the importance of protecting the individual's right to sexual self-determination. The use of coercive action for the existence of actual interference with the individual's sexual autonomy is is in fact not necessary. In response to the outdated and inappropriate coercion model, consent models have emerged that directly protect the individual's sexual autonomy by requiring the victim's disagreement or consent. Both the "no means no" model and the "yes means yes" model are characterized by the fact that only the outwardly expressed will of the victim is taken into account, namely as an expression of disagreement in the event of the former or as an expression of consent in the event of the latter. Although the "yes means yes" model focuses primarily on the victim, from whom it no longer requires disagreement or resistance to the perpetrator but (only) an expression of consent, some critics believe that this constitutes the reversal of the burden of proof, whereby interfering with the presumption of innocence. If disagreement is required by law, any doubt as to the existence of disagreement will lead to an acquittal. However, if the law requires consent, the doubt about the existence of consent will only further strengthen the position of the prosecution that the accused is guilty. Comparative law analysis shows gradual transition of criminal law systems from the coercion model to one of the consent models. Slovenian and Finnish criminal law are still based on the coercion model, but there are already tendencies towards the reform of sexual criminal law in both countries. The coercion model was abandoned in Sweden, where the "yes means yes" model was adopted in which it is essential that the other person (the victim) does not participate in sexual intercourse voluntarily. The "yes means yes" model has also been adopted in England, Wales and Croatia, whereas Germany has adopted the "no means no" model.
Secondary keywords:	coercion model;"no means no";"yes means yes";sexual offense;sexual conduct;consent;sexual self-determination;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	74 str.
ID:	11936240