Normativna ureditev sodnega izvedenstva v kazenskih postopkih

diplomsko delo visokošolskega študijskega programa Varnost in policijsko delo

Gal Gorjup (Author), Miroslav Žaberl (Mentor)

Abstract

V diplomski nalogi smo obravnavali ureditev sodnega izvedenstva in vlogo sodnega izvedenca v kazenskem postopku. V začetku diplomske naloge smo opredelili osnovne pojme, kot sta izvedenstvo in izvedenec, ter kdo je sploh lahko sodni izvedenec in kako lahko nekdo to postane. Nato smo se osredotočili na potek procesa izvedenstva ter spoznali, kdo odreja izvedenstvo, kako se določi predmet izvedenstva, kakšen je potek dela sodnega izvedenca in predstavili dva najpomembnejša izdelka sodnega izvedenca – izvedenski izvid in mnenje, ki imata na sodišču dokazno vrednost. Predstavili smo oblike oziroma vrste sodnega izvedenstva in vsako podrobneje spoznali ter se seznanili z oblikami, ki jih Zakon o kazenskem postopku navaja kot obvezne. Nato smo na kratko opisali še eno izmed problematičnih področij sodnega izvedenstva v kazenskem postopku, in sicer izvedenstvo na področju spolne zlorabe otrok. V zadnjem delu diplomske naloge pa smo opravili analizo sodbe Ustavnega sodišča U-I-132/95, ki je obravnavalo, ali je 2. odstavek 249. člena v sladu z Ustavo Republike Slovenije. Skozi diplomsko nalogo smo potrdili vse tri hipoteze, ki smo si jih zadali v uvodnem delu, in sicer prvo hipotezo, da sodišče ni strokovno usposobljeno za vsa področja in zato potrebuje pomoč sodnih izvedencev, ki sodišču pomagajo razumeti strokovna, ne pa pravna vprašanja. Druga potrjena hipoteza, da je sodni izvedenec v kazenskem postopku lahko vsak, ki je strokovnjak določenega področja, zato se mora na zahtevo kazenskega sodišča odzvati, ter tretja hipoteza, da je sodni izvedenec več kot zgolj priča v kazenskem postopku, zato mora biti nepristranski in morajo zanj veljati enaki pogoji izločitve, kot to veljajo za sodnika.

Keywords

diplomske naloge;sodni izvedenec;izvedenstvo;kazenski postopek;izvedensko mnenje;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2020
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	UM FVV - Faculty of Criminal Justice
Publisher:	[G. Gorjup]
UDC:	343.95(043.2)
COBISS:	28280067
Views:	488
Downloads:	76
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Normative regulation of court expertise in criminal proceedings
Secondary abstract:	In this thesis, we discussed the regulation of court expertise and the role of the expert witness in a criminal procedure. In the begining of thesis, we defined the basic concepts, such as court expertise, the expert witness, who is allowed to be an expert witness, and how they can even become one. Then, we focused on the course of the expertise process and studied who orders expertise, how the subject of expertise is defined, what the workflow of an expert witness is like; and presented the two most imporant products of the expert witness – the expert report and expert opinion, which both have a probative value in court. We presented the different types of court expertise and got to know each of them better, determining which types are mandatory according to the Criminal Procedure Act. Then, we focused on one of the problematic areas of court expertise in criminal procedures, namely expertise in the area of child sexual abuse. In the last part of thesis, we conducted an analysis of judgment of the Constitutional Court U-I-132/95, which discussed the second pragraph of the 249th article, aiming to determine whether it is in line with the Slovenian constitution. Through the thesis we confirmed all three hypotheses, which were defined in the introductory part. The first hypotheis was that the court is not professionally trained for all subject fields and requires the help of the expert witnesses in order to be able understand all the tehnical questions, but not the legal questions. The second confirmed hypothesis is that anybody who is an expert in some field can be an expert witness, which is why they have to respond on request of the court. The third hypothesis was that in a criminal procedure the expert witness is more than a regular witness, which is why they must be impartial and the same exclusion conditions that apply to the judges must apply to them.
Secondary keywords:	expert witness;expertise;criminal proceedings;expert opinion;
Type (COBISS):	Bachelor thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Fak. za varnostne vede, Ljubljana
Pages:	V, 38 str.
ID:	12021277