Suchergebnisse

Trust in Lithuanian police, courts and prosecutors oqce has reached the record values in 2015. Trust and conCdence in these institutions is growing, though it is diqcult to identify what exactly is stimulating that growth. Public relations or media in_uence, or good organization of the institutional work as well as other reason can be an explanation for the better public attitudes. Answers to the question "Do you trust the police, courts, prosecutors oqce?" do not explain what was done properly when trust values raise, and what problematic areas of institution work need attention when evaluations are getting worse. `ere is a signiCcant doubt expressed in academic literature if this and only indicator, so oƒen used for the evaluation of institution work, adequately describes how good or eQectively prosecutors oqce works, police safeguards public security, and courts ensure protection of citizen rights, defence of interests and other demands of democratic society. `e article analyses trust and conCdence in institutions of criminal justice system in Lithuania. Analysis uses ideas and data of two international research projects - EURO-JUSTIS and FIDUCIA. We examine trust and conCdence as complex phenomenon, which include several important aspects: 1) eQectiveness of criminal justice institutions; 2) distributive justice; 3) procedural justice; 4) shared perceptions of right and wrong and shared moral values with institutions; 5) legitimacy of institutions; 6) co-operation between society and criminal justice institutions. Evaluation of the survey data shows that diQerent elements of this phenomenon obtain diQerent ratings, and diQer from the evaluation of trust and conCdence in the broad sense. Understanding of these diQerences gives us a possibility to assess and improve work of criminal justice institutions more purposefully

Trust in Lithuanian police, courts and prosecutors oqce has reached the record values in 2015. Trust and conCdence in these institutions is growing, though it is diqcult to identify what exactly is stimulating that growth. Public relations or media in_uence, or good organization of the institutional work as well as other reason can be an explanation for the better public attitudes. Answers to the question "Do you trust the police, courts, prosecutors oqce?" do not explain what was done properly when trust values raise, and what problematic areas of institution work need attention when evaluations are getting worse. `ere is a signiCcant doubt expressed in academic literature if this and only indicator, so oƒen used for the evaluation of institution work, adequately describes how good or eQectively prosecutors oqce works, police safeguards public security, and courts ensure protection of citizen rights, defence of interests and other demands of democratic society. `e article analyses trust and conCdence in institutions of criminal justice system in Lithuania. Analysis uses ideas and data of two international research projects - EURO-JUSTIS and FIDUCIA. We examine trust and conCdence as complex phenomenon, which include several important aspects: 1) eQectiveness of criminal justice institutions; 2) distributive justice; 3) procedural justice; 4) shared perceptions of right and wrong and shared moral values with institutions; 5) legitimacy of institutions; 6) co-operation between society and criminal justice institutions. Evaluation of the survey data shows that diQerent elements of this phenomenon obtain diQerent ratings, and diQer from the evaluation of trust and conCdence in the broad sense. Understanding of these diQerences gives us a possibility to assess and improve work of criminal justice institutions more purposefully

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest ...

Article analysis the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereina?er – CJEU or the Court) during development of mutual recognition principle in criminal justice. Firstly, it is being observed that CJEU has not given an explicit de\"nition regarding mutual recognition. However, the Court has acknowledged the principle as the foundation of criminal cooperation between Member states in European Union. In its rullings CJEU dealt with collisions between mutual recognition and other main principles of law such as non-discrimination, legality, proportionality. =e Court with the use of "mutual borrowing" has successfully incorporated mutual recognition into the European Union legal system and deepened the notion of it being as high as a constitutional level principle. =e research has clearly demonstrated that CJEU is an active defender of mutual trust which is the basis of mutual recognition principle. =e Court has established an unambiguous rule that Member state cannot follow any formal procedure during recognition of a decision. Besides this, CJEU has been straightforward about Member states having to fully trust one another and recognize a decision despite that the outcome according to its national legislation would be di^erent. On the other hand, recent position of the Court has slightly so?ened. According to CJEU, mutual trust can be contested by exceptional circumstances, especially by those, related to the protection of human rights. What is more, the Court proclaims the importance of mutual trust not only by explaining legal provisions related to principle of mutual recognition. CJEU has become a convenient platform for Member states to exchange their views regarding mutual recognition and to make each others legal systems more familiar as well. Cooperation between Member states during criminal proceedings goes hand in hand with the protection of human rights. =e Court, as an interpreter of related legal provisions, plays an important role in this matter as human rights has not been a priority while creating an efective system of international cooperation in criminal cases. Nonetheless, CJEU's position regarding protection of human rights remains quite controversial as it is not clear yet what is the relationship between the Court and the Court of Human Rights. =e importance of this area is supposed to grow as European Union through new legislation gradually strengthens the rights of suspects during criminal cooperation which means that the scope for CJEU's interpretations expands. In addition, the Court directly in&uences aspects of reintegration which are of the utmost importance ensuring proper protection of the interests of a convict.