350 KB51 KB201320252015Testen, Analetnik:41številka:6/7str. 1144-1158ISSN:0353-6521COBISSID:14632273URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-LMSOLHZMslIUS SOFTWAREPodjetje in delokazenski postopekkazniva dejanjakrivdasodiščasodna praksastorilciNeformalna pogajanja o priznanju krivde| pregled sodne prakse|Informal plea bargaining is a reflection of practice and a shortcut to better results. As they are not regulated by the law, the procedural rules applicable to formal bargaining, e.g. mandatory defence by an attorney, do not apply. In principle, a judge does not participate in the informal plea bargaining although he or she takes the first step to an alternative way of a dispute resolution, i.e. entering into a guilty plea bargain, by calling on the prosecutor to offer a plea agreement to the defendant if the defendant pleads guilty, and to the defendant to plead guilty or not guilty. Both parties are involved in plea bargaining by the judge: the prosecutor must formulate the charges and proposed sanction, and the defendant must plead guilty or not guilty (and consequently accept or refuse the prosecutor's offer). However, it must be noted that the participation of the parties in plea bargaining is voluntary. It is unclear why, in practice, the concept of "informal plea bargaining" has prevailed; the reason for it could possibly be in the concept of formal procedural act. Plea bargaining would also be a possibility, where the parties exchange information on criminal sanctions, admissibility of evidence, etc., and which could be concluded by the admission of guilt. Informal guilty pleas are not binding and are not excluded if no informal guilty plea bargain is entered into, because they are only given as non-binding information in a procedure taking place outside procedural rules. For as long as judges are committed to achieving the (ideal) norm, there will be shortcuts such as informal plea bargaining or informal guilty pleas and increased sanctions if the defendant does not plead guiltyNeformalna pogajanja so odziv prakse, bližnjica k boljšemu rezultatu. Ker zakonsko niso urejena, zanje ne veljajo postopkovna pravila, ki veljajo za formalna pogajanja, na primer obvezna obramba z zagovornikom. Načeloma velja, da sodnik ni udeležen v postopku neformalnih pogajanj, čeprav s pozivanjem tožilca, da naj oblikuje ponudbo za obdolženca, če krivdo prizna, in pozivom obdolžencu, da naj se izreče o krivdi, prav sodnik naredi prvi korak k alternativnemu načinu rešitve spora s sklenitvijo dogovora o priznanju krivde. V postopek pogajanj pritegne obe stranki, tožilca, ki oblikuje kaznovalni predlog, in obdolženca, ki se mora izreči o krivdi (in posledično tudi o tožilčevi ponudbi), čeprav velja, da stranki prostovoljno sodelujeta v pogajanjih. Ni jasno, zakaj se je v praksi uveljavil pojem neformalna pogajanja; morda zato, ker ne gre za formalno procesno dejanje, ampak za neformalno izmenjavo informacij o kazenski sankciji, o dovoljenosti dokazov in podobno, ki se lahko konča s priznanjem krivde. Neformalna izjava o priznanju krivde ni zavezujoča, se ne izloča, če ne pride do neformalnega dogovora o priznanju krivde, ker je dana samo kot neobvezujoča informacija v postopku, ki teče mimo postopkovnih (formalnih) pravil. Dokler bo sodnik zavezan k doseganju (idealnega) normativa, bodo obstajale bližnjice, kot so neformalna pogajanja oziroma neformalno priznanje krivde in neformalni pribitki kazni, če obdolženec krivde ne bo (formalno) priznalTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of Slovenia