Abstract
The behavior of the offender after the commission of a crime may consist, inter alia, in confession of the offense. In criminal law, the confession of a criminal offense, under certain conditions, can constitute a mitigating circumstance in terms of sentencing. In order for the confession to the offense to be constituted as a mitigating factor in sentencing, it must be voluntary, complete and truthful, and that it contributes to establishing the relevant facts in the proceedings. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia does not recognise the confession to a crime as an independent factor in sentencing, but it is evaluated through the offender's 'conduct after the commission of the offense and particularly his attitude towards the victim of the offense', while in several of its provisions the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia mentions the confession of a defendant. In our theory of criminal law, the generally prevailing view is that any confession to an offense does not constitute a mitigating circumstance, while, on the other hand, in practice, almost any confession to criminal offenses is uncritically accepted and erroneously evaluated as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing. The paper presents several examples where the courts incorrectly evaluated the confession to a criminal offense as a mitigating circumstance, and it particularly points to the fact that the courts' rationale does not contain the reasons for which confession was viewed as a mitigating circumstance.
Highlights
In order for the confession to the offense to be constituted as a mitigating factor in sentencing
that it contributes to establishing the relevant facts in the proceedings
The Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia does not recognise the confession to a crime as an independent factor
Summary
Apstrakt: Autor analizira značaj priznanja krivičnog dela kod odmeravanja kazne u okviru ponašanja učinioca posle učinjenog krivičnog dela. Priznanje krivičnog dela nije izdvojeno kao posebna okolnost koju sud uzima u obzir pri odmeravanju kazne, ali se ono ceni kroz držanje učinioca posle učinjenog krivičnog dela, a naročito njegov odnos prema žrtvi krivičnog dela. S obzirom na to da je priznanje krivičnog dela često prisutno u sudskoj praksi, ukazaćemo na neke odluke iz sudske prakse i dati kritički osvrt na preovlađujući stav da se svako priznanje krivičnog dela ceni kao olakšavajuća okolnost pri odmeravanju kazne. U držanje učinioca posle učinjenog krivičnog dela može se svrstati veliki broj različitih činjenica, a one se mogu odnositi na samo krivično delo, na krivični postupak, ili se mogu uopšteno odnositi na ponašanje učinioca. Sve pomenute činjenice mogu biti predmet šireg razmatranja, ali ovde želimo da se u okviru držanja učinioca nakon učinjenog krivičnog dela ograničimo samo na priznanje krivičnog dela, jer ono zauzima centralno mesto u sudskoj praksi. Ovde se nećemo baviti krivičnoprocesnim aspektom priznanja, odnosno priznanjem okrivljenog kao dokaznim sredstvom, već samo priznanjem krivičnog dela vezanim za odmeravanje kazne
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
