Suchergebnisse

Since the beginning of the 21st century more intensive efforts of the Serbian legislator have been observed which are directed at more efficient combatting illegal drugs abuse. The abuse of drugs and psychotropic substances is the problem which exists all around the world. Open borders allow easier movement of people and capital, but they also lead to appearance of new security threats. Legislative activities increase within the new environment, numerous international instruments are adopted, which among other things, imply progressive path of the EU legislation. When adopting and shaping a new legal text the legislators cannot anticipate all the future problems or foresee new manifesting forms of crime. When combatting illegal drug abuse, in principle, we are not talking about new manifesting forms of crime since they have been present since ancient times, but on the other hand the problems have originated in application of these provisions. Therefore, it is clear that we recognize the main reasons for amendments in difficulties in application of these norms in court practice. This, as the authors observe, brings into question normative shaping and drafting by the legislator. Chronologically observing the amendments to criminal legislation, we can see almost two decades of seeking for new adequate solutions in this field. The authors analyse these amendments and additions with special accent on the Law on amendments and additions to the Criminal Code of 2019 and attempt to find the answer to the question if the present state of the provisions, primarily Articles 246 and 246a, is acceptable, if the problems identified in court practice have been overcome or at least reduced. In the corresponding parts of the paper the authors refer to the current directions of development of the fight against drug abuse in other countries. At the end of the paper, as expected, there are suggestions de lege ferenda, as well as the authors' observations related to difficulties and obstacles on the path to drug abuse suppression.

The paper contains an analysis of certain provisions of the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and the first effects of its implementation. At the very beginning the question is asked of justification of the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Almost on a daily basis nowadays the news headlines refer to violence among the family members, particularly the violence of men against women and children. The main debate in media is about whether the state organs and society as a whole have taken all necessary steps to prevent violence from happening at all. The authors point to the unacceptable terminology of the legislator. There are many questions asked and an attempt is made to give the answers to some of them following the legal norms. Who is the possible perpetrator of domestic violence? What kind of procedure are we talking about? What is the role of the defender in this procedure? Do urgent measures play preventive or repressive role? Has their imposing become a dominant manner in preventing and suppressing domestic violence? Has the right to freedom of a possible perpetrator been jeopardized? What are the first effects of such manner of conduct of state organs, primarily the police, the public prosecution office and the court? How can possible abuses be prevented? One of the effects of the implementation of the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence should be prevention - the reduction in number of criminal offences of domestic violence. However, analyzing the available data the authors have come to quite the opposite conclusions. This means that the state has not responded in the best manner, using strict scientific reasoning and objective approach, to the matter of doctrinal analysis, and this is the problem of domestic violence. ; Rad sadrži analizu pojedinih odredaba Zakona o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici i prvih efekata njegove primene. Odmah na početku se postavlja pitanje opravdanosti Zakona o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici. Danas se udarne vesti u kolumnama svakodnevno odnose na nasilje među članovima porodice, naročito muškaraca nad ženama i decom. Glavna polemika u medijima vodi se o tome da li su državni organi i društvo u celini preduzeli sve što je neophodno da do nasilja ne dođe. Autori ukazuju na neprihvatljivu terminologiju zakonodavca. Postavljaju mnogobrojna pitanja i na neka od njih pokušavaju da daju odgovore prateći norme zakona. Ko je mogući učinilac nasilja u porodici? Koja je vrsta postupka u pitanju? Uloga branioca u ovom postupku? Da li hitne mere imaju preventivnu ili represivnu ulogu? Da li je njihovo izricanje postalo dominantan način sprečavanja i suzbijanja nasilja u porodici? Da li je ugroženo pravo na slobodu mogućeg učinioca? Kakvi su prvi efekti ovakvog načina rada državnih organa, pre svega policije, javnog tužilaštva i suda? Kako sprečiti eventualne zloupotrebe? Jedan od efekata primene Zakona o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici trebalo bi da bude prevencija - smanjenje broja krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici. Međutim, analizom dostupnih podataka autori zaključuju upravo suprotno. To znači da država nije na najbolji način, sa strogim naučnim rezonom i objektivnim pristupom, odgovorila na problem nasilja u porodici, koji je predmet doktrinarne analize u ovom radu.