TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

11

V prispevku je obravnavano vprašanje pomena zakonskega znaka zavestno oziroma vedoma, ko ga zakonodajalec uporabi v posebnem delu kazenskega zakonika. Ob tem se po začetnem premisleku o morebitni redundantnosti pojma kot rdeča nit razprave kaže vprašanje, ali se zakonski znak zavestno nanaša na objektivno-subjektivni kompleks biti kaznivega dejanja na eni ali celo na krivdo kot grajo storilčevega vedenja na drugi strani. Zaradi več mogočih odgovorov na postavljeno vprašanje se problematika izkaže za izmuzljivo in večplastno. V nekaterih primerih se zdi, da želi zakonodajalec celo vzpostaviti preživeto teorijo krivde in s tem grobo poseči v razumevanje splošnega pojma kaznivega dejanja, kot ga razumemo v skladu s splošnim delom kazenskega zakonika. Na drugih mestih pa v teoriji na primer zasledimo stališče, da zakonski znak zavestno odkazuje na direktni naklep storilca. V prispevku so zato začrtane jasne smernice za pomoč pri kazenskopravnem razlogovanju uporabnika prava, ko ta v opisu kaznivega dejanja naleti na pojem zavestno ali vedoma.

In the article, the meaning and scope of the term knowingly as used by the Slovenian legislature in the special part of the Criminal Code is examined. After opting for the refusal of the thesis of redundancy of this statutory provision, the author focuses on answering the question of how the term knowingly impacts the understanding of the objectively-subjective concept of Tatbestandsmäßigkeit on one hand and the concept of guilt on the other. A broad set of fitting but contradicting theories regarding this problem suggest the answer is elusive and multi-faceted. It seems that in specific cases, the legislature’s intent was to reintroduce into Slovenian criminal law the theory of guilt, thereby changing the understanding of the general concept of an offence as it is laid out in the general part of the criminal code. In other cases, however, criminal law theoreticians argued that it emphasizes the demand for dolus directus on the part of the perpetrator. This article therefore aims at providing clear guidelines for legal theory and practice on how to cope with incriminations containing the statutory provision knowingly.

Statutory Term Knowingly: On Porosity of the Dividing Line Between the Subjective Side of Tatbestandsmäßigkeit and Guilt