Metrics

  • citations in SCIndeks: 0
  • citations in CrossRef:0
  • citations in Google Scholar:[]
  • visits in previous 30 days:20
  • full-text downloads in 30 days:16

Contents

article: 6 from 76  
Back back to result list
2020, vol. 11, iss. 3, pp. 346-365
Plea bargain: Term, legal nature and use of the plea bargain as evidence
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law

emailminjablazic@hotmail.com
Abstract
Plea bargain is an institute that is used in most different criminal proceedings, and does not represent an issue in matter when a certain criminal event is being related to a single perpetrator of a criminal act. In situations where more perpetrators exist, or more criminal acts, verdict that has accepted the plea bargain can be frequently used as evidence, which cannot be tested. Having in mind that Code of criminal proceedings is regulating three kinds of bargains between public attorney and offender, those being plea bargaining of criminal act, which goal is to rationalize the sole criminal procedure, as well as bargain on account of witnessing of offender or convict, whose goal is to efficiently carry out the procedure in relation to other offenders of criminal acts, question is raised on why is plea bargain used as evidence in criminal procedure. Using the plea bargain as evidence, without option of that evidence being tested, represents a violation of the right to defense, right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. Having in mind the fact that principle of material truth is not one of principles in criminal procedure, as well as the fact that option to sign the plea bargain is not limited with qualification of criminal act, nor prescribed punishment, as well as the matter of facing practical problems of using the plea bargain as a formed fact, that cannot be tested, questions is raised how can we solve the practical problem using theory. It's doubtless that public attorney is benefiting from the option of using plea bargain as established and inexcusable evidence, but the position of defense is in matter here, and its position to test the evidence that cannot be a subject of dispute. Having in mind that public attorney has on disposal other bargains as well, that can be signed with the offender, or convicted person in goal of efficiently implementing the proceedings in relation to other offenders of criminal acts, we realize that using the plea bargain should have for, its purpose, sole rationalization of criminal procedure. Alongside criminal procedures that are finalized, there are many criminal proceedings that are not finalized, where defense is helplessly fighting the use of plea bargain as evidence. Realizing the practical problem, it can be useful to take this issue in aspect from few angles, as well as suggesting the means on how to solve a problem in issue. In regard what was said earlier, in goal of respecting the principles of criminal procedure, changes of Code of criminal procedure were suggested, as well as easier solution regarding the lawful stand of Supreme Court of cassation that would answer this theoretical problem, would fulfill the void in law system, harmonize case law, as well as fully respect and use right to defense.
References
*** (2013) Head notes to the judgment of the Second Senate of 19 March 2013. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2013/03/rs20130319_2bvr262810en. html, 07. novembar 2018
*** Codice di Procedura Penale. https://www.polpenuil.it/attachments/048_codice_di_procedura_penale.pdf, 07. novembar 2018
*** (2012) Zakon o kazenskem postopku. Uradni list RS, 32
*** Penal procedure Code. Promulgated State Gazette, 83/18, 46/12, 109/20, 69/5, 109/23, 12/13, 27/10, 32/27, 101/28, 13/11
*** Ugolovno-processual'nYj Kodeks Rosssjskoj Federacii. N 174-FZ
*** (2019) Dopis Tužilaštva za organizovani kriminal od 01. februara 2019
*** (1980) Case Deweer v. Belgium. app. no. 6903/75, Judgment of 27 February 1980
*** (2017) Presuda Vrhovnog kasacionog suda. Kzz 867/2017 od 06. septembra 2017
*** (2017) Presuda Apelacionog suda u Kragujevcu. Kž1 329/2017 od 24. marta 2017
*** (2018) Rešenje Apelacionog suda u Kragujevcu. Kžm1 15/18 od 08. juna 2018
*** (2017) Rešenje Apelacionog suda u Kragujevcu. Kž1 1152/2018 od 17. oktobra 2017
*** (2016) Rešenje Apelacionog suda u Kragujevcu. Kž 1611/2016 od 26. decembra 2016
*** (2018) Presuda Apelacionog suda u Kragujevcu. Kž1 243/2018 od 20. marta 2018
*** (2005-2016) Krivični zakonik. Sl. glasnik RS, 85/2005, 88/2015-ispr, 107/2005-ispr, 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2013, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016
*** (2011-2014) Zakonik o krivičnom postupku. Sl. glasnik RS, 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013, 55/2014
*** (2008-2017) Zakon o kaznenom postupku. Narodne Novine, 152/08, 76/09, 80/11, 121/11, 91/12, 143/12, 56/13, 145/13, 152/14, 70/17
Alschuler, A. (1979) Plea Bargaining and Its History. Columbia Law Review, 79(1)
Bajović, V. (2015) Odmeravanje kazne i sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela. NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija, vol. 20, br. 2, str. 179-193
Bejatović, S. (2015) Efikasnost krivičnog postupka kao međunarodni pravni standard i reforma krivičnog procesnog zakonodavstva Srbije - norma i praksa. NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija, vol. 20, br. 2, str. 27-53
Brkić, S. (2016) Krivično procesno pravo II. Novi Sad
Brkić, S. (2004) Racionalizacija krivičnog postupka i uprošćene procesne forme. Novi Sad
Bugarski, T. (2014) Dokazne radnje u krivičnom postupku. Novi Sad
Cambj, N. (2013) Sporazumijevanje prema noveli Zakona o kaznenom postupku. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, No. 2
Cheesman, S.J. (2014) A Comparative analysis of plea bargaining and the subsequent tensions with an effective and fair legal defence. Szeged
Delibašić, V. (2017) Sporazum javnog tužioca i okrivljenog o priznanju krivičnog dela. Kultura polisa, No. 32
Djurdjić, V., Subotić, D. (2010) Procesni položaj javnog tužioca i efikasnost krivičnog postupka. Beograd
Grubač, M. (2011) Nove ustanove i nova rešenja Zakonika o krivičnom postupku Srbije od 26. septembra 2011. godine. Pravni zapisi, vol. 2, br. 2, str. 467-514
Ivičević, K.E., Puljić, D. (2013) Presuda na temelju sporazuma stranaka u hrvatskom kaznenom procesnom pravu i praksi Županijskog suda u Zagrebu. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, No. 2
Jimeno-Bulnes, M. (2013) American Criminal Procedure in European Context. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 21(2)
Krstulović, A. (2002) Primjena kazne na zahtjev stranaka kao mehanizam konsesualnog stranačkog upravljanja postupkom u Italijanskom kaznenom procesnom pravu. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, No. 2
Milovanović, M. (2010) Sporazum o priznanju krivice - pro et contra. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, vol. 58, br. 2, str. 415-431
Pizzi, W., Marafioti, L. (1992) The New Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: The difficulties of Building an Adversarial Trial System on a Civil Law Foundation. Yale Journal of International Law, 17(1)
Scott, R.E., Stuntz, W. (1992) Plea Bargaining as Contract. Yale Law Journal, 101
Solomon, P.H. (2012) Plea Bargaining Russian Style. Demokratizatsiya, 20(3)
Stojanović, Z. (2010) Krivično pravo: opštii deo. Beograd
Strafprozeßordnung (1982) Strafprozeßordnung (StPO). in: Strafprozessordnung, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 5-6, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/index.html,06.no-vembar2018
Ščerba, F. (2013) The concept of plea bargaining under the Czech criminal law and the criminal law of other countries within the region of Central Europe. International and Comparative Law Review, 13(1)
Škulić, M. (2016) Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd
Škulić, M., Ilić, G. (2012) Kako je propala reforma -Šta da se radi. Beograd
Škulić, M., Ilić, G. (2012) Novi Zakonik o krivičnom postupku Srbije -Reforma u stilu 'Jedan korak napred -dva koraka nazad. Beograd
Trudić, I., ed. (2016) Sporazum stranaka u kaznenom postupku -Trgovina pravdom ili?. Pravni vjesnik, No. 1
Turner, J. (2016) Plea Bargaining and Disclosure in Germany and the United States: Comparative Lessons. Wm & Mary L. Rev, Vol. 57
Uzlau, A. (2013) Plea bargaining: A new criminal procedure institution. International Journal of Juridical Sciences, No. 4
Vuković, I. (2015) Kauzalnost radnje pomagača u odnosu na delo izvršioca. Crimen (Beograd), vol. 6, br. 1, str. 46-60
Yordanova, M., Markov, D. (2012) Countering Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Study on the legal framework. Sofia
 

About

article language: Serbian
document type: Review Paper
DOI: 10.5937/crimen2003346B
received: 13/09/2020
accepted: 23/11/2020
published in SCIndeks: 22/01/2021
Creative Commons License 4.0

Related records