Izuzeće sudije i drugi procesnopravni problemi u primeni uslovnog otpusta

Abstract

Rad je tematski podeljen na dva dela koji nisu strogo odvojeni. Vezu između ovih čini institut uslovnog otpusta. U prvom delu obrađuje se ustanova (obaveznog) izuzeća sudije iz veća koje odlučuje o molbi za puštanje na uslovni otpust. Primećeno je da ovo pitanje ne okupira pažnju nauke, a ni prakse. Ukazuje se zbog čega je ovo zanemarivanje neopravdano. Konkretno, analizira se mogućnost učestvovanja sudije u veću koje odlučuje o puštanju na uslovni otpust ako je već postupao u istom predmetu. Posledice do kojih dovodi nedovoljna pažnja o ovom pitanju su sledeće: 1) bitna povreda odredaba krivičnog postupka i 2) vođenje disciplinskog postupka protiv sudije koji se morao izuzeti. U drugom delu rada ispituju se pojedine odredbe više pravnih akata koje uređuju materiju uslovnog otpusta. Naime, ogroman značaj uslovnog otpusta je u tome što osuđeni ima mogućnost da se nakon dve trećine izdržane kazne zatvora nađe na slobodi. Razmere ove mogućnosti najjasnije postaju kod dugotrajnih kazni zatvora. Uprkos opštoj tendenciji ka smanjenju zatvoreničke populacije, izgleda da uslovni otpust nema i ne može da ostvari ulogu koja mu je namenjena. Postupak za puštanje na uslovni otpust, u sudskoj praksi često deluje kao sporedna stvar, a ZKP otvara vrata raspravi o kvalitetu pojedinih odredaba postupka za puštanje na uslovni otpust.

The work is thematically divided into two parts that are not strictly separated. The link between these is the institution of release on parole. The first part deals with the institution of disqualification of a judge from the panel which decides on the petition for release on parole. It was noted that this issue does not occupy the attention of science, nor practice. It is pointed why this neglect is unjustified. Specifically analyzed is the possibility of participation of judge in deciding on release on parole if he has already acted (had some role) in the same case before. The consequences that can be brought by insufficient attention on this issue are as follows: 1) substantive violation of the provisions of criminal procedure, and 2) the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against a judge who should have been disqualified. The second part examines certain provisions of legal acts regulating the matter of conditional release. The enormous significance of parole is that the convict has the possibility to get out after 2/3 of served prison sentence. The scale of these opportunity is clearly visible on the long-term prison sentences. Despite the general tendency towards reducing the prison population, it appears that parole does not and can not achieve the role which it intends. The procedure for release on parole in the case law often acts as a sideshow and the CPC opens the door to discussions about the quality of certain provisions of the procedure for release on parole.