Full text of the paper:

Preuzimanje rada u pdf formatu

Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law in Novi Sad, University in Novi Sad

2024, vol. LVIII, No. 1, pp. 163-180

language of the paper: Serbian

Original scientific paper

udk: 340:343.1

doi:10.5937/zrpfns58-49688

Authors:

Saša Knežević

University of Niš

Faculty of Law Niš

knez@prafak.ni.ac.rs

ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0545-5229

 

Marko Trajković

University of Niš

Faculty of Law Niš

marko@prafak.ni.ac.rs

ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5302-918X

 

Dragiša Drakić

University of Novi Sad

Faculty of Law Novi Sad

d.drakic@pf.uns.ac.rs

ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5248-6562

Abstract:

In criminal proceedings, the justification of the prosecutor’s criminal demand for punishing the accused is decided upon. The basic postulates of justice dictate that the human rights of the perpetrator of a criminal act can be restricted based on a conviction, which is the result of the conducted criminal procedure.

The theory of criminal law, especially legislation, should find ways to bring justice from legal-philosophical heights into the reality of a conflicted society. Along with the standard methods of social reaction which, in the first place, is mandatory initiation of criminal proceedings whenever legal conditions are met, positive law also prescribes possibilities of consensual decision-making.

The materialization of the concept of consensual justice is achieved in the pre-trial procedure as well as in the formal criminal procedure. By conditional postponement of criminal prosecution, the criminal matter finds its epilogue in the pre-trial procedure. Thus, no judicial decision is being made on the merits of the criminal demand, and the public prosecutor becomes some kind of adjudicator of the criminal matter.

The concept of consensual justice is brought to life within criminal proceedings by party agreements – one of the forms of consensual decision-making. Different forms of this procedure contribute to the efficiency of the criminal procedure as well as the realization of criminal policy aims. Deciding on the guilt of the accused is simplified, and, on the other hand, the accused and the convicted, as collaborators of the court, facilitate the understanding of decisive facts about the criminal event with their statements.

Keywords:

justice, fairness, consensus, decision-making, discretionary proceedings.