The Reform of the Pecuniary Penalties in the New Lithuanian Criminal Code
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
This article deals with legal regulation of criminal sanctions as prescribed in the new Lithuanian Criminal Code, most of attention devoting to the legal reform of pecuniary sanctions. Thus, the author reveals international attitude in respect of these sanctions, foreign states laws and application thereof and proposes possible solutions for alternative legal regulation.
After comprehensive analysis of provisions of Criminal Code of 1961 and current sentencing practice the author arrives at the conclusion that due to social problems and certain shortcomings of the Code pecuniary penalties are applied too seldom. Furthermore, such sentencing practice does not serve for better protection of victims’ rights. Therefore, the author welcomes the new system of criminal sanctions as prescribed in the new Lithuanian Criminal Code (adopted in 2000) which stipulates more frequent application of milder sanctions or releasing of the offender from criminal liability or penalty, if applicable. However, not all the new provisions deserve such positive evaluation. The author states that the new Criminal Code should provide a possibility to impose several penalties (and/or combine with criminal effect measures if necessary) in order to avoid sole, but more severe penalty.
Furthermore, the author is of the opinion that day fine system could have been implemented in order to make sentencing process more transparent. Article 61 of the new Criminal Code obliges the judge initially determine medium of the penalty as the datum point of determining final penalty. However such system would lead to imposition of standard fines ignoring financial status of the offender. Even though the author supports the idea of concretisation of sentencing laws, such system would be justifiable if day fine system is applied.
The new Code presents a modernised concept of forfeiture, i.e. only that property which was acquired illegally or measure or tool of committing a crime is subject to be forfeited. However, practice certifies that sometimes it is rather difficult to prove that certain property is acquired and possessed illegally. Therefore, the author proposes to entitle a judge a right to forfeit any property of the offender assuming that it was acquired illegally if certain crimes were committed (illegal distribution of drugs, money laundering, in respect of organised criminals etc.) unless the offender proves that certain property was acquired legally.
The other very significant innovations of the new Code are aimed to protect victim’s rights with criminal effect measures. Even though some scepticism was expressed during preparation of the new Code in respect of these measures (i.e. obligation to compensate material damages, obligation to pay contribution to the victims’ compensation fund), the author is convinced that they would serve obliging an offender to execute his/her obligations more promptly, and Lithuanian criminal law would correspond to the values recognized in the European Union.
After comprehensive analysis of provisions of Criminal Code of 1961 and current sentencing practice the author arrives at the conclusion that due to social problems and certain shortcomings of the Code pecuniary penalties are applied too seldom. Furthermore, such sentencing practice does not serve for better protection of victims’ rights. Therefore, the author welcomes the new system of criminal sanctions as prescribed in the new Lithuanian Criminal Code (adopted in 2000) which stipulates more frequent application of milder sanctions or releasing of the offender from criminal liability or penalty, if applicable. However, not all the new provisions deserve such positive evaluation. The author states that the new Criminal Code should provide a possibility to impose several penalties (and/or combine with criminal effect measures if necessary) in order to avoid sole, but more severe penalty.
Furthermore, the author is of the opinion that day fine system could have been implemented in order to make sentencing process more transparent. Article 61 of the new Criminal Code obliges the judge initially determine medium of the penalty as the datum point of determining final penalty. However such system would lead to imposition of standard fines ignoring financial status of the offender. Even though the author supports the idea of concretisation of sentencing laws, such system would be justifiable if day fine system is applied.
The new Code presents a modernised concept of forfeiture, i.e. only that property which was acquired illegally or measure or tool of committing a crime is subject to be forfeited. However, practice certifies that sometimes it is rather difficult to prove that certain property is acquired and possessed illegally. Therefore, the author proposes to entitle a judge a right to forfeit any property of the offender assuming that it was acquired illegally if certain crimes were committed (illegal distribution of drugs, money laundering, in respect of organised criminals etc.) unless the offender proves that certain property was acquired legally.
The other very significant innovations of the new Code are aimed to protect victim’s rights with criminal effect measures. Even though some scepticism was expressed during preparation of the new Code in respect of these measures (i.e. obligation to compensate material damages, obligation to pay contribution to the victims’ compensation fund), the author is convinced that they would serve obliging an offender to execute his/her obligations more promptly, and Lithuanian criminal law would correspond to the values recognized in the European Union.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
