Aspects of non-pecuniary damage repayment for murder in Lithuania

Straipsnyje nagrinėjami neturtinės žalos atlyginimo, kaip valstybės požiūrio į žmogaus gyvybę išraiškos, klausimai. Jame aptariama neturtinės žalos sąvoka, pabrėžiamas būtinumas asmenį pripažinti nukentėjusiuoju dėl neturtinės žalos atlyginimo vadovaujantis ne civilinės, bet baudžiamosios teisės nuostatomis, taip pat analizuojamos neturtinės žalios kompensavimo nužudymų bylose kertinės nuostatos, susijusios su objektyvių ir subjektyvių nusikaltimo sudėties požymių visuma. Autorius dėmesį sutelkia ir ties neturtinės žalos dydžio nustatymo teisinio reglamentavimo klausimais bei teismų praktika kompensuojant neturtinę žalą.The article examines questions of compensation for non-pecuniary damage as an expression of the state’s attitude towards human life. The article introduces the definition of non-pecuniary damage and urges to use provisions of criminal law, instead of civil law, to acknowledge a person as a victim. It also analyses key provisions of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in homicide cases that are related to the totality of objective and subjective elements of offence composition. The author pays particular attention to the issues of legal regulation in determination of the value of non-pecuniary damage and court practice in compensation of non-pecuniary damage. The author believes that Lithuanian society still exalts spiritual suffering, while its material value is hardly recognized, for which the judicial process, which should tackle the question of non-pecuniary damage, often turns into a process where the main concern is the protection of defendant’s material welfare and what amount they would be able to pay. The compensation for non-pecuniary damage is not only a question of proving facts, it is foremost the question of the “price” of the murdered. This is why the interests of a victim shouldn’t be collated to making a profit of disaster. The court makes decisions in specific cases and applies the legal norms created by the legislator by using facts, logical and rational arguments. By acting in the name of the state and in its interests, the court should firstly take into account the scale of values set by laws and recognized by the state; what is the priority - human life, the victim’s pain of loss and suffering or the defendant’s age, their material and family status. The court should determine that the defendant killed a person and by doing so they disregarded the highest value, therefore the relatives of the murdered must receive a just compensation. Only in this way the court can clearly set the priority of life over other values; by assessing it adequately, it expresses the state’s attitude towards murder