Amendment to the Criminal Code in the Context of Harsher Criminal Policy Towards Violent Crimes

Sa？etak This article, provides a critical analysis of the Proposal of the Fifth Amendment to the Criminal Code, which focuses on a stricter penal policy towards violent crimes, based on legal theory, case law and statistical analysis. The article emphasises that concerns and disagreements in practice should first and foremost be addressed through the correct interpretation of the law. The authors’ view is that the Proposal of the Amendment increases penalties for certain offences against life and limb due to the lenient criminal policy of the courts. Legislative intervention in criminal offences against personal liberty covers criminal offences of threat and stalking, to which new aggravated circumstances are added, and rules on prosecution ex officio. Although neither theory nor practice has called into question the crime of serious defamation, the legislature has unjustifiably, unexpectedly and non-transparently proposed to delete it, giving unacceptable and inaccurate reasoning for doing so. This would limit the protection of honour, reputation and privacy in the era of frequent ‘fake news’. Incorporating the criminal offence of non-consensual sexual intercourse into the offence of rape is another intervention that would not solve the problem of wrongfully lenient offence classifications in practice, nor is it likely to lead to harsher sentencing. Long-term suffering is introduced as a new element of the crime of domestic violence, and a parallel amendment to the Act on Protection against Domestic Violence will make any bodily injury a crime. The new law prescribes a new offence of coercion against a person who performs activities of public interest or a public servant, but the Proposed Amendment only protects those persons when they are prevented from performing their activity. In practice, the absence of a legal definition of public interest and public servant may be a problem. In addition to highlighting other changes in the Proposed Amendment, the authors conclude that the enforcement of judicial penal policy needs to come not only from legal changes but also from the strong and persistent involvement of the State Attorney’s Office in proposing sanctions and filing appeals for inappropriately imposed penalties