Institut neprištevnosti z vidika sodne prakse in stališč ljudi

magistrsko delo

Maria Brecelj (Author), Miroslav Žaberl (Mentor), Vanja Ida Govednik (Co-mentor)

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;percepcija;duševne motnje;magistrska dela;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2023
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UM FVV - Faculty of Criminal Justice
Publisher:	[M. Brecelj]
UDC:	343.1:616.89(043.2)
COBISS:	152528387
Views:	35
Downloads:	2
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Criminal insanity from the point of view of judicial practice and people's opinions
Secondary 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.
Secondary keywords:	Sodna praksa;Zaznavanje;Stališče (psihologija);Duševne bolezni;Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Fak. za varnostne vede, Ljubljana
Pages:	VII f., [89] str.
ID:	18947524