Turtinių bausmių reforma naujajame Lietuvos Respublikos Baudžiamajame kodekse
| Author(s) |
|---|
Šulija, Gintautas |
| Date Issued |
|---|
2004 |
2003 m. gegužės 1 d. įsigaliojus naujajam Baudžiamajam kodeksui buvo pradėta taikyti visiškai nauja kriminalinių sankcijų sistema. Straipsnyje nagrinėjamos esminės bausmių ir baudžiamojo poveikio priemonių sistemos reglamentavimo naujovės, daug dėmesio skiriama priežasčių, kurios nulėmė vienokį ar kitokį šių nuostatų formulavimą, analizei ir alternatyvių reglamentavimo būdų aptarimui. Autorius daro prielaidą, kad iki šiol nebuvo tinkamai taikomos turtinio pobūdžio bausmės, todėl dažniausiai buvo skiriama laisvės atėmimo bausmė, o nukentėjusiesiems nebūdavo tinkamai atlyginta žala. Be to, įgyvendinant tarptautines rekomendacijas baudžiamojoje teisėje ir baudžiamajame procese nukentėjusiajam turi būti skiriama daugiau dėmesio. Straipsnyje atskirai aptariamos turtinės bausmės ir baudžiamojo poveikio priemonės, pabrėžiant baudos bausmės, turtinės žalos atlyginimo arba pašalinimo ir turto konfiskavimo baudžiamojo poveikio priemonių teisinio reglamentavimo bei galimas taikymo problemas.
This article deals with legal regulation of criminal sanctions as prescribed in the new Lithuanian Criminal Code, most of attention devoting to the legal reform of pecuniary sanctions. Thus, the author reveals international attitude in respect of these sanctions, foreign states laws and application thereof and proposes possible solutions for alternative legal regulation. After comprehensive analysis of provisions of Criminal Code of 1961 and current sentencing practice the author arrives at the conclusion that due to social problems and certain shortcomings of the Code pecuniary penalties are applied too seldom. Furthermore, such sentencing practice does not serve for better protection of victims’ rights. Therefore, the author welcomes the new system of criminal sanctions as prescribed in the new Lithuanian Criminal Code (adopted in 2000) which stipulates more frequent application of milder sanctions or releasing of the offender from criminal liability or penalty, if applicable. However, not all the new provisions deserve such positive evaluation. The author states that the new Criminal Code should provide a possibility to impose several penalties (and/or combine with criminal effect measures if necessary) in order to avoid sole, but more severe penalty. Furthermore, the author is of the opinion that day fine system could have been implemented in order to make sentencing process more transparent. Article 61 of the new Criminal Code obliges the judge initially determine medium of the penalty as the datum point of determining final penalty. However such system would lead to imposition of standard fines ignoring financial status of the offender. Even though the author supports the idea of concretisation of sentencing laws, such system would be justifiable if day fine system is applied. The new Code presents a modernised concept of forfeiture, i.e. only that property which was acquired illegally or measure or tool of committing a crime is subject to be forfeited. However, practice certifies that sometimes it is rather difficult to prove that certain property is acquired and possessed illegally. Therefore, the author proposes to entitle a judge a right to forfeit any property of the offender assuming that it was acquired illegally if certain crimes were committed (illegal distribution of drugs, money laundering, in respect of organised criminals etc.) unless the offender proves that certain property was acquired legally.