Baudžiamoji atsakomybė už pasikėsinimą padaryti nusikalstamą veiką netiesiogine tyčia - kelias link nuoseklesnės ir pagrįstesnės baudžiamosios politikos?

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama galimybė taikyti baudžiamąją atsakomybę už netiesiogine tyčia padarytas nebaigtas nusikalstamas veikas. Lietuvoje tokia galimybė yra numatyta baudžiamajame įstatyme, tačiau nepripažįstama teismų praktikoje ir daugelio baudžiamosios teisės mokslininkų. Straipsnyje prieinama prie išvados, kad nėra jokių teorinių kliūčių taikyti baudžiamąją atsakomybę už pasikėsinimą padaryti nusikalstamą veiką netiesiogine tyčia. Be to, jos taikymas, atsisakius tyčinių nusikalstamų veikų kvalifikavimo pagal faktiškai kilusius padarinius taisyklės, leistų išvengti šiuo metu teismų praktikoje pastebimo nusikaltimų, keliančių didelį pavojų žmogaus gyvybei arba sveikatai, kvalifikacijos ir skiriamų bausmių neadekvatumo šių nusikaltimų esmei ir pavojingumui. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamoji atsakomybė; Neatsargumas; Netiesioginė tyčia; Pasikėsinimas; Attempt; Criminal responsibility; Dolus eventualis; Indirect intent; Recklessness.

ENThe article discusses the problem of the non-criminalisation of an attempt to commit a crime with "dolus eventualis". [ The author presents a comparative analysis of various criminal cases which shows that the present rules of the qualification of attempted offences lead towards unreasonably mild convictions. In the cases where very dangerous but unintentional acts accidentally do not cause any or cause just petty consequences, the offences are qualified just as offences against public order or petty offences against health. These cases make a contrast to the cases where evidently less dangerous unintentional acts cause grave consequences (i.e. human death) and are qualified as completed manslaughter. On the whole, it creates evident inconsistency in sentencing. The author indicates that this inconsistency could be overcome, if the courts ceased to qualify non-negligent crimes subject to the consequences which in fact occur and would convict defendants for the attempted offences instead. Furthermore, in order to find out the possible obstacles for the proposal to apply criminal liability for the attempts with "dolus eventualis", related norms of the Penal Code as well as the opinions of the researchers of criminal law are analysed.The analysis of Article 22 of the Lithuanian Penal Code shows that the text of the Penal Code does not preclude criminal liability for an attempt with "dolus eventualis". What is more, the analysis of the theoretical discussion of the pro and contra views regarding the criminalisation of an attempt with "dolus eventualis" allows to conclude that "dolus eventualis" is compatible with the concept of attempt. Consequently, the author ascertains that there are no formal (dogmatic) reasons to object to the criminal liability for an attempt with "dolus eventualis". He indicates that the discussion is of penal-political nature. The author concludes that because of the high dangerousness of the crimes committed with "dolus eventualis", it is more politically reasonable to qualify such crimes according to the rules that are applied for intentional crimes (and, consequently, punish attempts) than to qualify them similarly to negligent crimes (and leave attempts unpunished). [From the publication]