Bausmių skyrimo nuostatų konkretinimo problemos naujajame Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama bausmių skyrimo sistemos reforma naujajame Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse, bausmių skyrimo nuostatų formalizavimo perspektyvos, tarptautiniuose dokumentuose numatytos bausmių skyrimo rekomendacijos ir užsienio valstybių praktika. Subalansuotas nuoseklus bausmių skyrimas - viena iš šiuolaikinių baudžiamosios teisės tendencijų, suteikianti daugiau galimybių užtikrinti asmenų lygybę įstatymui ir tiksliai, o ne abstrakčiai nustatyti skiriamos bausmės dydį. Vis dėlto stiprus pasipriešinimas, daugiausia nulemtas teisėjų dėl jų teisių ribojimo, nelemia nevienareikšmiško formalizuotos bausmių skyrimo sistemos vertinimą. Autoriaus teigimu, bausmių sistema turi būti aiški ir skaidri, remdamasis ja kaltininkas gali tikėtis, kokios rūšies ir dydžio bausmė jam bus paskirta. Atsižvelgiant j tai pateikiami bausmių skyrimo sistemos sukonkretinimo ir vienodos teismų praktikos formavimo pasiūlymai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Bausmės skyrimas; Baudžiamasis kodeksas; Sentencing provisions; Criminal Code.

ENArticle deals with the problem of formalisation of sentencing provisions. After examination of current sentencing practice the author states that it lacks consistency and stipulates frequent application of imprisonment. During the past decade Lithuanian Criminal Code has been amended for several times in order to make sentencing provisions more coherent. But now it appears that the changes introduced were not sufficient. The first chapter of the article reveals the theoretical concept of forrnalisation of sentencing provisions. It is obvious that consistent sentencing provisions serve for equal protection of all defendants. Furthermore, it allows seeking for proportional and transparent sentencing and equally treating significant circumstances of the case. However formalised sentencing law tends towards imposition of typical penalty what limits court's possibilities to consider personality of the offender and exceptional circumstances of the case. The second chapter of the article reveals international attitude towards sentencing. After analysis of documents issued by Council of Europe and European Union institutions the author arrives at the conclusion that national jurisdictions are entitled to establish criminal sanctions and sentencing system upon their own discretion. Furthermore international institutions, e.g. European Court for Human Rights, shall not have a right to call into question the length of the sentence imposed by competent court. The third chapter deals with sentencing systems in different foreign jurisdictions. Thus, three different jurisdictions, i.e. U.S. Federal, Finnish and Dutch, were compared. After examination o f different sentencing laws and application of provisions thereof the conclusion could be drawn that European states are not eager to establish determine sentences. On the contrary, they seek proportional sentencing enhancing judicial control.The fourth chapter analyses sentencing system as established in the new Lithuanian Criminal Code. The author is of the opinion that proportional sentencing should be based on consistent judicial practice. Therefore, it is proposed to: establish certain sentencing provisions which would stipulate boundaries of the sanction; enhance judicial and prosecutor's control; promote courts provide more coherent motives in their rulings. [From the publication]