543 KB46 KB201120252017Šelih, Alenkaštevilka:1letnik:77str. 7-23, 120-121COBISSID_HOST:15926609ISSN:1854-3839URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-RCLOJORQslPravna fakultetaZbornik znanstvenih razprav (Pravna fakulteta. 1991)aims of punishmentcriminal lawdosmrtni zaporkazensko pravolife imprisonmentnačelo sorazmernostinameni kaznovanjaprepoved mučenjaprinciple of proportionalityprohibition of tortureDosmrtni zapor in njegova odprava|The article advocates abolition of life imprisonment and enumerates reasons for this. It deals with the problem of whether this penalty is in accordance with the constitutional principle of prohibition of torture. At the same time, it points out that this penalty rises doubts in connection with the principle of legality (of criminal sanctions) as well as with the principle of proportionality. The article then reviews the relationship between this penalty and the aims of criminal sanctions and comes to the conclusion that it does meet these aims as prediction of committing a new offence is extremely difficult; resocialization of this penalty is non existing, while deterrence and retribution are better achieved by fast and certain punishment. The contribution also deals with the rights of the victims and surveys the case law of the European Court for Human Rights. It also emphasizes that Slovenia has been the only country among the former Yugoslav republics that has introduced this penalty and the only one that has introduced it as a new sanction and not as a substitute for death penalty which has been the case in other legal systemsČlanek se zavzema za odpravo kazni dosmrtnega zapora in razgrinja argumente za tako rešitev. Obravnava vprašanje skladnosti te sankcije z ustavnopravno prepovedjo mučenja. Hkrati opozarja na njeno spornost v zvezi z načelom zakonitosti (nedoločenost te kazni) in na načelo sorazmernosti. Nato razčlenjuje razmerje te kazni in namene kaznovanja. Ugotavlja, da ta kazen ne izpolnjuje teh načel, saj je preprečevanje novega kaznivega dejanja storilca težko napovedati; resocializacija pri tej kazni ni mogoča; pa tudi namen zastraševanja in povračilnosti sta bolje uresničena s hitrim in čim bolj zagotovim kazenskopravnim obravnavanjem storilca. Prispevek odpira tudi vprašanja varstva pravic žrtev, razčlenjuje ustrezno sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice ter ugotavlja, da je Slovenija edina država med republikami nekdanje Jugoslavije, ki je uvedla to kazen, in tudi edina, ki jo je uvedla povsem samostojno ne pa kot nadomestilo za smrtno kazen, kakor so jo drugi pravni sistemiTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta