Drivers that Change the Direction of Penal Policy: A Case of Developments of Victim—Offender Reconciliation in the Lithuanian Criminal Justice System

The paper presents a recent significant shift in Lithuanian penal policies on non-serious crimes where the punitive approach has given way to the restorative approach. It discusses the preconditions of this change with a particular focus on the attitudes of Lithuanian judicial authorities. In contrary to the common stereotypes and academic opinions that criminal justice system holds onto hard-line policies with a high degree of inertia, the results of the research reveals that prosecutors and judges favor the pragmatic alternative ways for solving victim—offender conflicts. Their approach is based on the conviction that full-scale prosecution and punishment for non-serious crimes often impede primary victims’ needs and places an unreasonable burden on the criminal justice system. This approach allows us to anticipate good perspectives for the implementation of the victim—offender mediation services in the Lithuanian criminal justice system

Minimali konfiskuotino turto vertė legalumo ir proporcingumo principų bei racionalios baudžiamosios politikos kontekste

The article discusses the clause provided in the Lithuanian Criminal Code, which limits the court’s extended powers of confiscation in regard of crime proceeds of value less than EUR 12,500. The developing practice of the application of extended powers of confiscation in Lithuania makes this issue not only a matter of principle but also a practical one. The article analyzes to what extent such a precondition is compatible with the principle of legality and in particular the principle that rights do not arise from wrongdoing (Ex iniuria ius non oritur). Further, the author discusses the arguments justifying the discussed limitation to confiscate low-value crime proceeds – rational organisation of law enforcement resources, the principle of proportionality and a requirement of legal systematicity. The article concludes that the latter arguments are not always used accurately. The limitations of law enforcement resources ought to be regarded by providing authorities with discretion, not by limiting confiscation powers. The principle of proportionality and legal systematicity are hardly applicable in the discussion due to the specific legal nature of the confiscation powers. In parallel, the article concludes that the limitation of the minimum value of confiscatable crime proceeds is contrary to the European Union law – Directive 2014/42/EU.Straipsnyje kvestionuojama Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse numatyta sąlyga, kuria ribojama teismo galimybė konfiskuoti iš nusikaltimų gautą mažesnės nei 12 500 Eur vertės turtą išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo tvarka. Besivystanti ir, galima sakyti, įsibėgėjanti išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo taikymo praktika daro šį klausimą jau ne tik principinį, bet ir praktinį. Straipsnyje analizuojama, kiek tokia sąlyga dera su legalumo principu, iš kurio išplaukia principas iš neteisės teisė nekyla, o aptariamame kontekste – iš nusikaltimo nekyla net ir nedidelės vertės turtinė teisė. Kartu pristatomi argumentai, kuriais teisinamas aptariamas ribojimas konfiskuoti nedidelės vertės nusikalstamu būdu gautą turtą – racionalaus teisėsaugos darbo organizavimo, proporcingumo, sistemiškumo. Prieinama prie išvados, kad vis dėlto pastarieji argumentai nėra vartojami tiksliai ir pagrįstai, ir jie neturi pakankamai svorio, kad pateisintų išimtį iš principo, kad iš neteisės teisė nekyla. Kartu straipsnyje prieinama prie išvados, kad konfiskuotino turto vertės ribojimas prieštarauja Europos Sąjungos teisei – Direktyvai 2014/42/ES

Pakartotinis įtartinos turto kilmės vertinimas – pateisinama viešojo intereso apsaugos priemonė ar žmogaus teisių pažeidimas?

The internationally acknowledged need for effective legal measures against illicit enrichment that is perceived as the key policy tool against organised crime and corruption triggered rapid developments in the variety of those legal measures. Lithuania may serve as a sole-standing example of a jurisdiction that enacted a great variety of legal strategies against illicit enrichment – criminal liability both for money laundering and illicit enrichment and also extended powers of confiscation, civil confiscation and tax fines for unexplained income. This diversity of measures leads to the issue of competition arising between them and also carries the risk that measures may be used repeatedly and arbitrarily against persons and their property.The paper focuses on the issue of the legitimacy of repeated investigation and assessment of suspicious assets in civil confiscation proceedings and extended powers of confiscation.The analysis is divided into two parts where fundamentally different legal situations are discussed. In the first situation, repeated assessment of the origin of the assets takes place in proceedings of similar legal nature (proceedings aiming to restore legal order). The second situation appears where reassessment takes place in proceedings of a different nature – in the restorative proceedings after failure to prove the illicit origin of the assets in the punitive proceedings.While the first situation rather clearly falls within the scope of the principle of legal certainty and the rule res judicata that prohibit repeated proceedings for the same issue in the same circumstances against the same person, the second situation is more open to debate. Punitive proceedings use the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence is in play. These safeguards are designed to protect defendants from unfounded conviction, but they may be considered excessive for other legal issues such as the recovery of damages or the proceeds of illicit activities. In addition, in the context of civil confiscation, public interest in effective protection from organised crime and corruption comes into play. Therefore, there are strong arguments for giving priority to public safety over the principle of legal certainty that would protect defendants from repeated assessment of their assets in other proceedings with a lower standard of proof or even the reversed presumption of the illegality of unexplained wealth.Finally, the paper addresses the question of whether extended powers of confiscation qualify for restorative or punitive proceedings. The answer to this question is the key argument of whether civil confiscation proceedings can legitimately follow criminal proceedings where the court failed to confiscate the assets on the grounds of extended powers of confiscation. The paper argues that extended powers of confiscation are of a restorative nature. Therefore, when assets have already been investigated in proceedings of civil confiscation and their origin has been assessed as lawful in the light of extended powers of confiscation, re-consideration of their origin should be deemed as infringing the principle of legal certainty, unless the decision in the criminal proceedings was barred by lack of formal grounds.Valstybės kūrybiškai siekia išspręsti nusikalstamu būdu įgyto turto identifikavimo ir konfiskavimo efektyvumo problemą, įdiegdamos įvairių tam skirtų teisinių įrankių. Tokių įrankių gausa Lietuva išsiskiria net tarptautiniu mastu. Straipsnyje analizuojama teisiniame reguliavime užprogramuota turto konfiskavimui skirtų teisinių įrankių konkurencijos problema, konkrečiai – pakartotinio turto tyrimo ir vertinimo galimybė naudojant skirtingus teisinius įrankius ir iš jos kylančios dilemos. Dilemų kelia tokiose situacijose konkuruojantys teisinio apibrėžtumo ir visuomenės saugumo užtikrinimo principai. Nors savo teisine prigimtimi analogiškų teisinių priemonių pakartotinio pritaikymo nesuderinamumas su teisinio apibrėžtumo principu kelia mažiau abejonių, vis dėlto situacijų, kai nenustačius neteisėtos turto kilmės baudžiamojo persekiojimo priemonėmis siekiama perspręsti turto kilmės klausimą kitokia tvarka, taikant valstybei palankesnes įrodinėjimo taisykles ir standartus, sprendimas yra labai nevienareikšmis

Kaltininko abejonė dėl nusikalstamos veikos aplinkybių ir jos baudžiamasis teisinis vertinimas.

This article discusses the mental state of uncertain (reckless) knowledge of material element of an offense and its treatment in criminal law. The mental state of reckless knowledge is common in criminal cases, especially in cases of smuggling, drug trafficking, sexual coercion and rape of a person under eighteen years of age, pickpocketing and etc. This state of mind is described as situation, when a person receives incomplete or contradictory information about element of an offense but suspects the real facts. However, notion of reckless knowledge of material element of an offense is still unknown in Lithuanian theory of the criminal law. Lithuanian theory of the criminal law operates only with notions of knowledge and ignorance, and also with general notion of perception. Lithuanian courts do not use notion of uncertain knowledge either. In most cases they treat uncertain knowledge as case of ignorance of a circumstance. In contrast, German, English, American criminal law and some Russian authors treats uncertain knowledge as case of perception, not as ignorance or mistake. This article contends, that this point of view is grounded better. This article discusses whether uncertain knowledge of circumstance could suffice for dolus eventualis. On the other hand, it is discussed, whether dolus eventualis could suffice conviction for offenses, which have not consequences as their material element (offenses with formal corpus delicti). Lithuanian criminal law traditionally rejects positive answers to these questions, German, most English and American (as far, as question concerns recklessness) and some Russian authors hold opposite point of view. This article contends, that traditional Lithuanian attitude does not hold critic from psychological and normative point of view and should be changed. However Lithuanian Criminal Code does not provide definition of dolus eventualis for offenses with formal corpus delicti, therefore author proposes to fill this gap temporarily by judicial practice and doctrine. The need to supplement Lithuanian Criminal Code with definition of dolus eventualis, applicable for offenses with formal corpus delicti is also highlighted.Straipsnyje analizuojama Lietuvos baudžiamosios teisės teorijoje ligi šiol dar nenagrinėta sąvoka - kaltininko abejonė dėl jo padarytos nusikalstamos veikos aplinkybių. Atskleidžiamas jos turinys, nagrinėjama šios sąvokos reikšmė nustatant kaltininko kaltės formą. Pastebima, kad dabartinėje Lietuvos teismų praktikoje ir užsienio (Vokietijos, anglų-amerikiečių) baudžiamojoje teisėje kaltininko abejonė vertinama iš esmės skirtingai. Autorius nagrinėja šių pozicijų argumentus ir prieina prie išvados, kad užsienio autorių pozicija, kad abejonė yra suvokimo atmaina, galinti būti netiesioginės tyčios požymiu, yra tiek psichologiniu, tiek norminiu atžvilgiu pagrįstesnė. Kartu teikiami pasiūlymai tobulinti galiojančio baudžiamojo įstatymo nuostatas, kad siūloma pozicija būtų efektyviai įdiegta Lietuvos baudžiamojoje teisėje

Nusikalstamos veikos neteisėtumo suvokimo samprata ir jo baudžiamoji teisinė reikšmė.

The article revises concept of perception of crime unlawfulness. The attention is focused on function of this notion in criminal law and it’s relations to other concepts and institutes of criminal law (preconditions of criminal responsibility, intention, perception of crime wrongfulness) as well. The approaches used in doctrine of criminal law in foreign countries (Germany, Russia) are examined too. The author comes to a conclusion that traditional concept of perception of crime unlawfulness is insufficient and has to be changed. Narrowing the perception of crime unlawfulness to perception of criminal unlawfulness, do not correspond the function of the concept in question, that is considered as to ground defendant’s legal blameworthness. The author proposes, that perception of crime unlawfulness should be defined as defendant’s perception that his act is in conflict with legal order. New attitude to the concept forces to elaborate new concepts of other important notions - preconditions of criminal responsibility and intellectual element of intention. The author proposes, that perception of crime unlawfulness or actual possibility to acquire such perception should be considered as precondition of perpetrator’s legal blameworthness and criminal responsibility as well. The author argues, that concept of perception of crime unlawfulness has the same meaning as concept of perception of crime wrongfulness. It is concluded, that the 15 th chapter of Lithuanian Criminal Code includes both perception of crime wrongfulness and unlawfulness into content of intention. Such position of the legislator is criticized. It has been concluded, that perception of crime unlawfulness or actual possibility to acquire such a perception should be considered as independent precondition of criminal responsibility. It should not be included into content of intention.Straipsnyje analizuojama nusikalstamos veikos neteisėtumo suvokimo sąvoka, atkreipiamas dėmesys į jos paskirtį baudžiamojoje teisėje ir ryšį su kitais baudžiamosios teisės institutais bei sąvokomis (baudžiamąja atsakomybe, jos turiniu, tyčia, nusikalstamos veikos pavojingo pobūdžio suvokimu). Straipsnyje diskutuojama dėl Lietuvos baudžiamojoje teisėje nusistovėjusio požiūrio į nusikalstamos veikos neteisėtumo suvokimo sampratą kaip neprobleminę ir neturinčią didesnės baudžiamosios teisinės reikšmės. Kaip alternatyva tradiciniam požiūriui, siūloma Vokietijos baudžiamojoje teisėje išplėtota ir, autoriaus nuomone, Lietuvos baudžiamajai teisei visiškai priimtina nusikalstamos veikos neteisėtumo suvokimo koncepcija. Ši koncepcija savo ruožtu verčia naujai vertinti tradicinį Lietuvos baudžiamajai teisei požiūri į baudžiamosios atsakomybės sąlygas, tyčios intelektinio momento turinį. Šioms problemoms straipsnyje taip pat skiriama nemažai dėmesio

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

This article discusses the problem of the non-criminalisation of an attempt to commit a crime with dolus eventualis. The present judicial practice and the doctrine of the criminal law in Lithuania maintains that only direct intention may support conviction for an attempt. If the court did not establish a direct intention to commit a crime, the offence was to be qualified as completed subject to the consequences of the act which in fact occur. 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 politicaly 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).Straipsnyje 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

Suėmimo taikymo pokyčiai Lietuvoje: teisinės kultūros perspektyva

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] This article presents some of the results from the research project “DETOUR: Towards Pre-Trial Detention as Ultima Ratio,” funded by the European Commission (2016– 2017), where the author of the article, together with his colleague V. Pajaujis from the Law Institute of Lithuania, as well as project partners from Austria, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Romania, addressed the legal, procedural-structural and legal-cultural particularities in different countries that might be the roots of the different practices in pre-trial investigation when deciding on coercive measures for suspects. The research was particularly focused on the views and attitudes of the practitioners: judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers. Multiple semistructural interviews (no less than 35 per project partner), and four international events with the practitioners’ participation, have been carried out during the project. First, the article presents and discusses the dynamics of statistics in pre-trial detention in Lithuania. Some factors that make impact on statistics that have no relation to the changes of the legal culture in pre-trial investigations are discussed. However, the author comes to the conclusion that even revised statistics indeed indicate a huge drop in the prevalence of pre-trial detention. This assumption is further confirmed by the opinions of the respondents and by the particular instances of objective and subjective factors that might have impact on the downward trend in the application of pre-trial detention. Among the objective factors, the positive experiences of the practitioners in the effective operation of the European arrest warrant have been noted. Also, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasized the importance of the equality of parties and the adversarial principle in detention hearings, highly contributed to the elimination of ill-practices, whereas before and during the detention hearings prosecutors used to provide less information from files for the defense than for the judge. The interviews with prosecutors and judges showed instances of a positive shift in attitudes from an orientation toward (or even an over-emphasis of) securing the proceedings to a reasonable balance between the interests of justice and the protection of human rights. It seems that this shift is closely connected with higher standards motivating pre-trial detention. Also, standards of professional contacts between the police and the prosecution, and between the prosecution and the judiciary, have reportedly risen quite substantially, especially in bigger cities. Even though the Lithuanian justice system still employs more coercion in the pre-trial investigation (more detention) against suspects more than most of the European countries, the general outlook in this field is rather optimistic.[straipsnis ir santrauka lietuvių kalba; santrauka anglų kalba] Straipsnio pagrindas yra tarptautiniame moksliniame projekte „DETOUR: Towards Pre-Trial Detention as Ultima Ratio“ atlikti tyrimai. Straipsnyje bent keliais pjūviais analizuojamos kardomosios priemonės – suėmimo taikymo ikiteisminiame tyrime praktika, ypač daug dėmesio skiriant teisinės kultūros ypatumams ir pokyčiams Lietuvoje. Pateikiama išgryninta suėmimo taikymo statistinė dinamika, apžvelgiamos objektyvios aplinkybės, galėjusios per tiriamąjį laikotarpį (2004–2017) sudaryti prielaidas teisinės kultūros pokyčiams, ir parodomi konkretūs teisinės kultūros taikant suėmimą ypatumai bei jų raida. Galiausiai Lietuvos situacija pateikiama Europos valstybių kontekste, kuris rodo, kad, nepaisant ženklaus poslinkio europinių standartų įgyvendinimo link, Lietuvoje dar lieka nemažai erdvės teisinės kultūros taikant kardomąsias priemones plėtotei

Alternatyvios (neapibrėžtos) tyčios samprata ir jos baudžiamoji teisinė reikšmė.

This article discusses the concept of dolus altemativus (indeterminatus) in criminal law. The Latin notion dolus alter-nativus does not have a direct translation in English. Dolus includes not only what common law would call intention and knowledge, but also some cases of recklessness (so called dolus eventualis). Notion of dolus altenativus (indeterminatus) is widely used in Lithuanian judicial practice but also it is a subject for heated discussion among scholars of criminal law. Firstly, scholars debate whether notions dolus altemativus and dolus indeterminatus have the same meaning. This article contends that dolus can not be undetermined. It is determined by the elements of one or several crimes, so it only may be specific or alternative but not undetermined. The second issue in the debate is whether dolus altemativus may include dolus eventualis or whether it should be limited only to cases of alternative specific intent. Examples from judicial practice show that it is possible for a perpetrator to act having several forms of mens rea regarding different consequences of an act. On the other hand there are no logical or systemic reasons to limit the notion of dolus altemativus to the cases of alternative of specific intents. Therefore the article contends that dolus altemativus may include dolus eventualis. [...]Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas plačiai teismų praktikoje paplitęs, bet baudžiamosios teisės doktrinoje nevienareikšmiškai vertinamas tyčios skirstymas į apibrėžtą ir alternatyvią (neapibrėžtą). Keliami klausimai, ar apskritai tyčia gali būti neapibrėžta, koks šio skirstymo santykis su kitomis tyčios rūšimis (tiesiogine ir netiesiogine), kuo remiasi nusikalstamų veikų kvalifikavimo taisyklės, kurios teismų praktikoje taikomos nustačius alternatyvią, (neapibrėžtą) tyčią. Atsakant į šiuos klausimus pamažu prieinama prie išvados, kad baudžiamojoje teisėje apskritai nėra prasmės tyčią skirstyti į apibrėžtą ir alternatyvią (neapibrėžtą)