Nusikalstamų veikų daugeto formos ir jų reikšmė skiriamai bausmei

LTAnalizuodami užsienio valstybių baudžiamuosius kodeksus bei įvairių mokslininkų nusikalstamų veikų daugeto tema rašytus darbus pastebėsime, kad vienodo požiūrio į nagrinėti pasirinktą problemą nėra. Diskutuojama tiek dėl nusikalstamų veikų kvalifikavimo esant jų daugetui, tiek dėl daugeto formų bei jų įtakos skiriamai bausmei. Tačiau straipsnis, taikant dogmatinį, loginį ir sisteminės analizės metodus, skirtas išnagrinėti tik pačius sudėtingiausius ir daugiausia ginčų keliančius šio savarankiško baudžiamosios teisės instituto probleminius aspektus – tai nusikalstamų veikų daugeto formos bei bausmės skyrimas padarius kelias nusikalstamas veikas. Daugiausia dėmesio skiriama nusikalstamų veikų daugeto formoms, nes nuo to, kokia bus šiuo klausimu koncepcija, priklauso ir kitų šio instituto problemų sprendimas. Autoriaus nuomone, dažniausiai palaikoma trinarė daugeto sistema kritikuotina, nes skaidant nusikalstamų veikų sutaptį, pakartotinumą ir recidyvą į rūšis akivaizdžiai matyti, kad nemažai jų viena kitą kartoja. Be to, kiek painoka ir daugeto formų bei jų rūšių terminija. Išanalizavęs šias problemas autorius pateikia naujesnį ir šiuolaikiškesnį požiūrį į nusikalstamų veikų daugeto formas – tokiomis pripažįsta tik sutaptį ir pakartotinumą. Ne ką mažiau dėmesio skiriama ir bausmės skyrimo problemai esant nusikalstamų veikų daugetui, nes jos sprendimas tiesiogiai susijęs su išskiriamomis nusikalstamų veikų daugeto formomis. Be teorinio šio klausimo aspekto, straipsnyje atkreipiamas dėmesys ir į teismų praktikoje galinčias kilti arba kylančias problemas skiriant bausmes padarius kelias nusikalstamas veikas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamoji teisė; Bausmių skyrimas; Nusikaltimų daugetas; Nusikaltimų sutaptis; Criminal law; Determaning the punishment; Multiply offences; Repetetive crimes; Sentencing.

ENWhile analysing the foreign states’ criminal codes and works of different scientists on repetitive criminal acts, one can see that there is no unified position to the problem. The discussions involve both the qualification of repetitive criminal acts, and their forms as well as their influence on sentencing. However, the article with the use of dogmatic, logic and systematic analysis methods aims at analysing only the most complex and disputable problematic aspects of this independent institute of criminal law. These are the forms of repetitive crimes, and sentencing, after commitment of several criminal acts. The focus is on the forms of repetitive criminal acts, since the conception of this issue determines the solution of other problems of the institute. According to the author, the most often supported system of the three-member repetitive criminal acts (coincidence of criminal acts, repetition of criminal acts and recurrence of criminal acts) does not hold the criticism, since in the process of dividing the coincidence of the criminal acts, repeat and recurrence into types, it becomes obvious that a number of them repeat each other. Besides, the terminology of repetitive criminal acts’ forms and their types is rather confusing. After the analysis of those problems, the author presents a more recent and modern view to the forms of serial criminal acts, and recognizes only the ones of coincidence and repetition as such. No less attention is dedicated to the problem of sentencing in case of several criminal acts, as long as its decision is directly connected to the discernible forms of serial criminal acts. eral criminal acts have been committed.It is recognized on the article that the new rules of generalising of sentencing are much more obvious than the previous ones in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania of 1961. Under this Code, courts in essence used only the principle of sentence embracing, what was especially favourable for the persons committing criminal acts. However, the author states, that the provisions of Article 63 of the Criminal Code of Lithuania of 2000 has not fully solved the problem. The perpetrator may find it useful to commit more crimes before the incriminatory decision of the court is made. Moreover, the author assumes that the application of the principle of the addition of partial sentence in the case of the repetition of criminal acts is neither scientifically grounded, nor properly regulated by laws. The Criminal Code does not even mention what levers court should take into consideration in the most severe punishment, of all given, adding a part of other mild ones. Due to this reason, a conclusion is made that the principle of partial addition of sentences is a kind of sentence embracing and the suggestion to withdraw from its application is provided in the article. At the same time, the author maintains, that adding the sentences for several criminal acts committed, the amount of the final sentence would not be limited. Only in such a case, it will become clear, how many crimes the sentenced has committed and what is the retribution of society. Apart from the theoretical aspect of this issue, the article draws attention to the problems arising in court practice while imposing sentences after several criminal acts have been committed. [From the publication]