- citati u SCIndeksu: [6]
- citati u CrossRef-u:0
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:14
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:0
|
|
2011, vol. 2, br. 1, str. 3-25
|
Preventivna funkcija krivičnog prava
Criminal law and crime prevention
Sažetak
Rasprava o preventivnoj funkciji krivičnog prava u prvi plan stavlja svrhu kažnjavanja. Međutim, od podjednakog značaja za ostvarivanje preventivne uloge krivičnog zakonodavstva jeste određivanje njegovih granica, pa su i pitanja kriminalizacije i dekriminalizacije neizbežna. Racionalan krivični zakonodavac mora voditi računa o tome kada će i pod kojim uslovima koristiti krivično pravo. Neprihvatljivo je pretvaranje kriminalne u bezbednosnu politiku jer to vodi još neefikasnijem krivičnom pravu koje je uz to i neprijateljski nastrojeno prema učiniocu krivičnog dela, a i u čitavom društvu stvara takvu klimu u kojoj se u svakom građaninu vidi potencijalni neprijatelj, odnosno onaj ko može da naruši bezbednost. Suzbijanje terorizma, organizovanog kriminaliteta, korupcije i nekih drugih ponašanja sve više nosi sa sobom opasnosti koje se mogu meriti sa samom opasnošću od tih vidova kriminaliteta. Danas nije realno očekivati da će savremeni krivični zakonodavac prestati da sve više ulazi u (za njega) nedozvoljenu zonu, što će u bliskoj budućnosti dovesti do krize legitimiteta krivičnog zakonodavstva (o njoj se već danas može govoriti). Zadatak je nauke, ali i svakog onog ko racionalno gleda na suzbijanje kriminaliteta, da uoči i upozori na negativne trendove umesto da ih podržava. Zalaganje za preoštru i preširoku krivično-pravnu represiju vodi ozbiljnim štetnim posledicama za pojedinca i društvo, a da se pri tome ne samo da ne dobija ništa na planu prevencije, već to vodi daljem slabljenju krivično-pravnog sistema. Izgleda da je potrebno stalno ponavljati da zaoštravanje propisanih kazni, samo po sebi, nema preventivno dejstvo. Umesto toga, treba postići to da dovoljan broj učinilaca krivičnih dela bude kažnjen srazmernom kaznom. Kao što uže inkriminacije imaju više izgleda da budu primenjivane od onih preširoko postavljenih, tako postoji i veća verovatnoća da će se češće primenjivati umerene kazne od onih prestrogih. Što je stroža propisana kazna, manji su izgledi da će ona biti primenjivana i obrnuto. Iako je za preventivno dejstvo krivičnog prava ključna njegova primena, to ne znači da je opravdano težiti tome da se primeni krivična sankcija na svakoga ko je učinio (bilo koje) krivično delo. Dovoljno je da se to čini u meri koja pretnju kaznom čini ozbiljnom. Štaviše, preterana primena krivičnog prava s jedne strane ne doprinosi prevenciji, a s druge strane predstavlja preveliki teret za bilo koje društvo.
Abstract
When discussing the deterrent effects of criminal law, the aim of punishment is in the foreground. To achieve the preventive role of criminal law, of same importance are the determination of its limits, as well as the inevitable questions of criminalization and decriminalization. Rational criminal legislator has to consider the point in time and the conditions when using criminal law. Converting crime policy in security policy does not guarantee more efficient suppression of crime, and it's hostile not only to the offender, but to the entire society, creating a climate in which each citizen is seen as a potential enemy, or as someone who may violate security. Combating terrorism, organized crime, corruption and other behaviors carries risks that can be compared even to the danger which arises from these types of crime. Today, it is not realistic to expect that criminal law legislator will stop intervening more and more in a zone that is not authorized for him. Soon, this will lead to a crisis of legitimacy of the entire criminal law justice system. Nevertheless, the task of scholars and everyone who rationally looks at the politics of crime is to detect and warn of the negative trends instead of supporting them. Criminal repression, which is harsh and too broad, leads to serious adverse consequences for the individual and the society. Such criminal policy does not contribute to the crime prevention, but tends to result in further weakening of the criminal justice system. Prescribing harsher penalties and broadening the limits of criminal law has no preventive effect. Excessive use of criminal law on the one hand does not contribute to prevention; on the other hand, it is a too heavy burden for every society. In this article, the arguments supporting minimalist theory of criminalization, which is advocating a realistic approach to the preventive role of criminal law in contemporary societies, and especially in Serbia, are discussed. The idea of a completely preventive criminal law, existing within a wider security criminal law which would protect citizens and society to a greater extent, may look acceptable at first view. But the author warns that this is a dangerous idea. We cannot be assured that this 'new' criminal law would fulfill protective function in a better way than traditional criminal law does, but it is almost certain that this would lead to strenghtening of totalitarism, which traces can already be seen in some democratic societies. It has to be shown in a clearly and empirically verifiable way that broadening and tightening of repression would pay off through a rising level and quality of protection of human rights for all members in society. Besides this predominantly utilitaristic condition, interests of prevention should never contradict to the principle of justice and proportionality; they always have to be realized as an adequate reaction to crime. This includes, to a certain extent, the need of introducing retributive elements even in criminal law that is mostly oriented as a preventive one. This doesn't lead to some kind of mixed theory, nor it imeans that retribution should be put on the same level as prevention, but to capitalize an advantage of retribution over prevention: their ability to set boundaries and quantum of criminal repression. Therefore, it can be barrier to unlimited prevention, which threatens to transform criminal law in wrong direction.
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
*** (1980) Report on decriminalisation. Strassburg
|
|
*** (1983) Durkheim and the Law. Oxford
|
|
Albrecht, A. (1985) Kleines kriminologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg
|
|
Albrecht, H.J. (2003) Der erweiterte Sicherheitsbegriff und seine Folgen. RAV, Infobrief 91
|
2
|
Andenaes, J. (1974) Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor
|
|
Beccaria, C. (1834) Dei delitti a delle pene. Livorno, nuova edizione
|
|
Begović, B. (2010) Ekonomska teorija generalne prevencije: osnovna pitanja. Crimen, 1(1): 50-65
|
2
|
Bock, M. (2010) Pozitivna specijalna prevencija i nove tendencije u kriminalnoj politici. Crimen, 1(2): 139-167
|
1
|
Bockelmann, P. (1961) Vom Sinne der Strafe. u: Heidelberger Jahrbucher, vol. 5, str. 33
|
8
|
Ćirić, J. (2008) Objektivna odgovornost u krivičnom pravu. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo
|
1
|
Elrich, I. (1975) The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death. American Economic Review, vol. 65, str. 379-417
|
|
Fagan, J., Meares, T. (2008) Punishment, deterrence and social control: The paradox of punishment in minority communities C Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. vol. 6
|
|
Hassemer, W., Luderssen, K., Naucke, W. (1983) Fortschrite im Strafrecht durch die Sozialwissenschaften. Heidelberg
|
|
Hassemer, W. (2006) Strafrecht, Prävention, Vergeltung. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 7
|
1
|
Hulsman, L. (1983) Abolire il sistema penale. Dei delitti e delle pene, 1, str. 85
|
1
|
Hulsman, L., de Celis, J.B. (1982) Peines perdues, Le système pénal en question. Paris
|
3
|
Ignjatović, Đ.M. (2003) Kriminalitet i reagovanje države. u: Radovanović D. [ur.] Strategija državnog reagovanja protiv kriminala, XV seminar prava, 4. do 6. jun, Budva, Materijali savetovanja, Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, str. 29
|
1
|
Kaiser, G. (1983) Kriminologie - Ein Lehrbuch. Heidelberg
|
|
Kuhl, K. (2001) Die Bedeutung der Rechtsphilosophie fur das Strafrecht. Baden-Baden
|
5
|
Mabott, J.D. (1981) Uvod u etiku. Beograd: Nolit
|
|
Mostl, M. (2002) Die staatliche Garantie für die offentliche Sicherheit und Ordnung. Tubingen
|
1
|
Murphy, J. (1979) Kant's theory of criminal punishment. u: Murphy J. [ur.] Retribution, justice and therapy, str. 82
|
1
|
Popitz, H. (1968) Über die Praventivwirkung des Nichtswessens. Tubingen
|
1
|
Ross, G. (1981) Entkriminalisierungstendenzen im Besonderen Teil. Frankfurt a/M
|
|
Roxin, C. (1980) Zur Entwicklung der Kriminalpolitik seit den Alternativentwurfen. Juristische Arbeitsblatter, Strafrecht
|
|
Roxin, C. (2006) Strafrecht - Algemeiner Teil. Munchen: Verlag C.H. Beck, Band I, 4. Auflage
|
1
|
Schmidhauser, F. (1971) Vom Sinn der Strafe. Gottingen, 2. Auflage, str. 53
|
|
Senna, J., Siegel, L. (1984) Introduction to criminal justice. New York - Los Angeles - S. Francisco
|
|
Sieber, U. (2007) Grenzen des Strafrechts. u: Sonderdruck aus, Band 119, ZtStW str. 23-24
|
|
Siegel, L. (1989) Criminology. Third edition
|
|
Stewart, C.H.M., Hemsley, D.R. (1979) Risk perception and likelihood of action in criminal offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 2
|
2
|
Stojanović, Z. (2010) Krivičnopravni ekspanzionizam i zakonodavstvo Srbije. u: Stanje kriminaliteta u Srbiji i pravna sredstva reagovanja, Beograd, IV deo
|
13
|
Stojanović, Z.P. (1991) Politika suzbijanja kriminaliteta. Novi Sad: Pravni fakultet
|
|
Stojanović, Z.P. (1986) Im Vorfeld eine Entkriminalisierungs Politik. Cahiers de Défense Sociale, str. 89 (1984)
|
|
Šešić, B. (1963) Nužnost i sloboda. Beograd: Kultura
|
1
|
Welzel, H. (1969) Das deutsche Strafrecht. Berlin
|
|
Wright, V. (2010) Deterrence in criminal justice: Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity of Punishment. u: The Sentencing project, Washington, November
|
|
|
|