Procedūrinio teisingumo problemos Lietuvos kriminalinėje justicijoje

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamoji justicija; Procedūrinis teisingumas; Teisingumas; Teisingumo kriterijai; Teisėjas; Criminal Justice; Criteria of justice; Judge; Justice; Procedural Justice; Procedurial justice.

ENDisputes between the society and a person accused in commiting an offence are solved as a long sequence of decisions. To file or not to file a case, arrest or not to arrest a person accused, should or shouldn’t a search be commited, is it legal or not, is an evidence valid or not - all these and many others decisions are taken investigating a criminal case both before the court and within it. All these decisions have to be just. This demand has double meaning. The first is that such decision has to meet legal criteria exposed in the acting law. The second one is to agree with subjective (individual) criteria of the side in this dispute, especially of a victim of crime and an offender. They have to recognise decision taken by officers and agents of criminal justice as just. Psychological investigations of procedural justice helped to expose internal criteria which ordinary people use when considering if some decision was just. Our idea is that the conformity of decisions to these subjective criteria is as important as their conformity to the acting law. On this basis we tried to assess how much the acting Lithuanian criminal law and procedure confirms internal criteria of justice used by ordinary people. Our analysis showed that: 1. Pretrial investigation in our country is in a sharp contradiction with these criteria; 2. For investigation within the court the law docs not state any definite way to solve criminal disputes. What follows is that the real ways to solve disputes are determined by legal usage. [From the publication]

• Teisė / Law
• Psichologija / Psychology