Bausmės individualizavimas ir teisingumo principo įgyvendinimas skiriant bausmes

LTStraipsnis skirtas įstatymų bei teismų bausmių skyrimo praktikos analizei. Pateikiamos ir aiškinamos Baudžiamojo kodekso bausmės skyrimo nuostatos. Motyvuojama išvada, kad 2000 m. Baudžiamojo kodekso nuostatos numato pakankamas sąlygas tinkamai individualizuoti bausmę ir paskirti ją teisingą. Analizuojant teismų bausmių skyrimo praktiką ypač pabrėžiamos laisvės atėmimo bausmės skyrimo problemos. Apžvelgiamos laisvės atėmimo bausmės skyrimo tendencijos teismų praktikoje. Pateikiama laisvės atėmimo bausmės skyrimo statistika ir baudžiamųjų bylų pavyzdžiai. Kritiškai vertinama paskirtos laisvės atėmimo bausmės vidurkių statistika. Analizuojamos įstatymo dėl bausmės vykdymo atidėjimo nuostatos, jų ryšis su bausmės individualizavimu ir šių nuostatų taikymo problemos teismų praktikoje. Bausmės individualizavimo aspektu nagrinėjamos bausmių skyrimo ir bendrinimo įstatymo nuostatos padarius kelias nusikalstamas veikas. Pateikiami teismų sprendimai nusikaltimų daugėto atvejais. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Bausmė; Teisingumo principas; Baudžiamoji politika; Penalty; Just punishment; Criminal policy.

ENThe article touches upon the problem of individualization of punishment under the Criminal Code and court practice. Society expects that just punishments are imposed on offenders. How could this purpose be reached? This depends on the Criminal Code and the practice of courts. The new Criminal Code of Lithuania establishes sufficient regulation, enabling the courts to impose just and individualized penalties. At first sanctions for less serious crimes consists of several alternative penalties. Apart from imprisonment, sanctions include a fine, restriction of liberty or community works. Moreover, Article 55 provides that if a person appears before the court for the first time, the court should impose on him a different punishment than imprisonment. In case of grave crimes the only punishment the Criminal Code usually provides for is deprivation of liberty. However, in appropriate cases the Criminal Code allows imposing a penalty which has not been included as a sanction in a particular provision proscribing specific conduct. This possibility is laid down in Article 54-3 and 62 of the Criminal Code. * Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law, professor. The Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Lithuania provides for the possibility to suspend an imposed sentence.However, the problem is that the court is empowered to do so only in cases a person is sentenced to imprisonment. Such a situation leads to a strange practice when a judge initially decides to suspend a sentence and only subsequently decides on the type of punishment to be imposed. Moreover, in several cases suspended sentences were imposed when a person committed a new crime during the period of suspension of a sentence. The Supreme Court usually replaces the sentencing decisions of the lower courts in such circumstances. New trends occurred in court practice during the last few years after the new Criminal Code came into force. The earlier Lithuanian criminal policy was publicly criticized for being too severe, and for the lengthy imprisonment sentences. Today we can say that criminal policy became very modest. For instance, in cases of less serious crimes no more than 20 percent of those sentenced were deprived of liberty. In nearly half of such cases the sentences were suspended. One more problem that is investigated in the article is the problem of just punishment in cases of committing several offences. In these cases the Criminal Code provides for special rules which are found in Article 63. It entitles a court to accumulate sentences imposed for a particular crime or apply a concurrent sentence. The court can accumulate the penalties fully or partially. However many practical problems arise in practice. How much should a sentence be aggravated in case a judge decides to apply a partial accumulation of the imposed penalties? The discussion is illustrated by examples from court practice. [From the publication]