Sporazum o priznanju krivice

Abstract

Pregovaranje o priznanju krivice je mehanizam putem koga se krivični slučaj razrešava bez suđenja, sporazumom uključenih strana. Sporazum se sastoji u priznanju krivice od strane optuženog u zamenu za tužiočevo obećanje da će ga teretiti za manje nego što omogućavaju dokazi, da ga neće teretiti za neka dela ili da će tražiti određenu kaznu. Sporazum je produkt i važan deo američke krivične pravde gde se velika većina krivičnih slučajeva razrešava na ovaj način. Poslednjih godina, većina evropskih zemalja, tradicionalnih zastupnika istražnog ili mešovitog krivičnog postupka, uvela je sporazum o priznanju krivice na različite načine, uglavnom sa ciljem da ubrza, pojednostavi i učini jeftinijim krivični postupak. Iako se evropska verzija pregovaranja o priznanju krivice razlikuje od svog američkog 'modela', svi ovi mehanizmi se zasnivaju na istoj ideji da se ubrza i pojednostavi krivični postupak donošenjem presude bez suđenja. Svrha ovog rada je analiza pregovaranja o priznanju krivice u Srbiji koja je uvedena u septembru 2009., novom reformom krivičnog postupka. Prema ovim odredbama, krivični prekršaji koji se kažnjavaju sa maksimalno dvanaest godina zatvorske kazne, mogu se razrešiti sporazumom o priznanju krivice. Obe strane (tužilac i optuženi ili njegov zastupnik) mogu inicirati pregovore, ali pregovori o priznanju krivice se ne regulišu zakonom već su prepušteni stranama koje pregovaraju. Sporazum o priznanju krivice mora da bude napisan i da ima formu klasičnog ugovora. Obavezni elementi takvog sporazuma su priznanje krivice, kazna, troškovi postupka i izričito odricanje prava na žalbu. Osim toga, sporazumom o priznanju krivice tužilac može da se obaveže da će okončati tužbu za neke krivične prestupe (pregovaranje o naknadi) ukoliko se optuženi obaveže da će ispuniti određene obaveze, tj. nadoknaditi štetu žrtvi, dati izvesnu sumu nekoj humanitarnoj organizaciji, obaviti neku civilnu službu ili nešto slično. Sve ovo je tema prvog dela članka. Sudija donosi konačnu odluku vezano za sporazum o priznanju krivice na specijalnom javnom saslušanju. Saslušanje se ne može održati bez prisustva optuženog i njegovog branioca, dok je prisustvo javnog tužioca poželjno ali nije neophodno, što izgleda neshvatljivo iz američke perspektive! Razlog za takvo rešenje je uverenje da optuženi ne bi trebalo da trpi negativne posledice tužiočeve nemarnosti. Sudija može da odbaci, odbije ili prihvati sporazum o priznanju krivice, nakon što je razmotrio ukoliko optuženi voljno i opravdano prizna krivicu svestan svih posledica (naročito da će se slučaj razrešiti bez suđenja i da neće imati pravo da se žali), ukoliko je sporazum zaključen u skladu sa ZKP, ukoliko su interesi žrtve zaštićeni sporazumom, adekvatnost predložene kazne itd. Sudija donosi posebnu pisanu odluku o sporazumu između strana, što je specifičnost pregovaranja o priznanju krivice u Srbiji. U svim ostalim zemljama, ukoliko sudija prihvati sporazum on donosi presudu u skladu sa tim, ukoliko ne, slučaj ide na sud. Donošenje pisane odluke pre presude se opravdava činjenicom da stranke ne mogu da se žale na odluku o sporazumu o priznanju krivice (žrtva ukoliko je sudija prihvati, stranke ukoliko odbije), i kada ova odluka postane konačna, sudija donosi presudu u skladu sa njom. Postupak pre suda i sudska presuda o sporazumu o priznanju krivice se dalje objašnjavaju u drugom delu članka.

Plea bargaining is a procedural mechanism through which criminal case is resolved without trial, by consensus of the parties. The agreement consists of the defendant pleading guilty in exchange for prosecutor's promise to charge him less serious than is supported by the evidence, not to charge him for some crimes or to request certain sentence. It is product and significant part of the American criminal justice, where the vast majority of criminal cases are settled on that way. In the last years, majority of European countries, traditional representatives of inquisitorial or mixed criminal procedure, introduced plea agreements in various modalities, mostly with the purpose to make criminal procedure faster, cheaper and more effective. Although European versions of plea bargaining differs from its American 'pattern', all these mechanisms are based on same idea- to accelerate and simplify criminal procedure bringing the verdict without trial. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Serbian plea-bargaining, introduced in September 2009, by the new reform of the criminal procedure. According to these provisions, criminal offences punishable by the maximum of twelve years of imprisonment could be resolved by plea agreement. Both parties (prosecutor and defendant or his council) could initiate negotiations, but plea negotiations are not regulated by the law, but left to the parties. Plea agreement must be in writings, and has the form of classical contract. Obligatory elements of such agreements are guilty plea, sentence, costs of the procedure and explicit denial of the right to appeal. Besides, by the plea agreement prosecutor could pledge to terminate the prosecution for some criminal offences (charge bargaining), while the defendant could oblige himself to fulfill certain obligations i.e., compensate the damage to the victim, pay certain amount to some humanitarian organization, perform some civil services, and the like. All these issues are analyzed in the first part of the paper. The judge brings the final decision about plea agreement at the special public hearing. The hearing could not be held without defendant and his lawyer, while the presence of public prosecutor is preferable but not necessary, what could be incomprehensible from American perspectives! The reason for that solution is belief that defendant should not suffer negative consequences caused by prosecutor's carelessness. The judge can dismiss, refuse or accept plea negotiation, after reviewing if defendant voluntary and reasonably plead guilty aware of all consequences (particularly that the case will be resolved without trial and he will not have the right to appeal), if agreement was concluded according to CPC, if the interests of victim are protected by agreement, adequacy of proposed sentence, etc… The judge passes particular written decision about parties' agreement, what is specific feature of Serbian plea bargaining procedure. In all other countries, if the judge accepts agreement he brings a verdict according to it if not, the case go to trial. Bringing the written decision before the verdict is justified by the fact that the parties could not appeal on the verdict brought according to plea agreement. Actually, the parties and victim could appeal on decision about plea agreement (the victim if the judge accept it, the parties if reject), and when this decision become final, the judge pass a verdict according to it. The procedure before the court and judicial decisions about plea agreement are further explained in the second part of the paper.