PROBLEMS OF SETTLEMENT AND OF USING SIMILAR INSTITUTES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

V sodobnem kazenskem postopku je želja po hitrejši in ekonomični rešitvi vse večja. Iz navedenega razloga države v svoje kazensko procesne predpise vključujejo institute, katerih temelj je priti do rešitve kazenskopravnega spora na podlagi sporazuma strank, katerega vsebina je dogovor o kazenski sankciji ali pa dogovor glede vrste in poteka postopka. Konsenzualni instituti so bolj razširjeni v državah, ki jih uvrščamo v angloameriški pravni sistem, le ti temeljijo na institutu plea bargaining. Vse bolj pa te institute v svoje nacionalne pravne rede vnašajo države kontinentalnega pravnega sistema, kar je posledica spreminjanja razmišljanja pravne stroke in potreba po skrajšanju postopkov s ciljem razbremenitve sodišč. Kot vsaka novost je tudi uvedba širše konsenzualnosti v kazenski proces predmet tako pozitivnih kot tudi negativnih kritik. Neodobravanje teh institutov temelji predvsem na možnosti kršitev načel kazenskega postopka in na mnenju večjega dela laične javnosti, ki kot korektorja kriminalitete vidi državo in ne strank postopka. Po drugi strani pa služijo ti postopki hitrejši rešitvi spora, nižji stopnji stigmatizacije obdolženca in zadoščenju oškodovanca, saj se sporazum sklene brez pritiska javnosti in na podlagi strinjanja obeh strank. V našem pravnem redu je obravnavanje te problematike pomembno z vidika uporabe instituta poravnavanja, ki je eden redkih institutov našega kazenskega procesa, ki je konsenzualne narave. V želji po širši uporabi poravnavanja se nam v kazenskem procesnem pravu obetajo spremembe, ki omenjeni institut dopolnjujejo in ki predvidevajo uvedbo širše konsenzualnosti, kot smo jo poznali do sedaj.In the modern criminal procedure, the need for a quicker and more cost-effective solution is becoming greater and greater. For the above-mentioned reason, the countries include in their regulations certain institutes, the foundation of which is to arrive at a solution of a criminal dispute at the basis of an agreement between parties, the content of which is a compromise regarding the penalty or an agreement regarding the type and course of the process. Consensual institutes are more popular in countries which belong to anglo-american legal system, where they are founded on the institute of plea bargaining. But it is becoming more and more common for the countries of the continental legal system to include these institutes in their legal orders, which is a consequence of the change in thought of legal science and the need for shorter proceedings with the goal to relieve the courts. Like any novelty is also the introduction of a broader consensuality into the criminal proceedings an object of positive as well as negative reviews. Frown upon these institutes is based mostly on the possibility of breach of basic principles of criminal proceedings and on the opinion of the larger part of lay public, which sees in the role of the corrector of criminality the state and not the parties involved in the proceedings. On the other hand these proceedings may serve a faster solution of the dispute, lower degree of stigmatisation of the accused and a larger degree of satisfaction for the injured party, because the agreement is reached without public pressure and on the basis of a mutual agreement of parties involved. In our legal order the discussion of these problems is important from the standpoint of the application of the institute of settlement, which is one of the few institutes of criminal proceedings which is consensual in nature. In desire for a more widespread use of arbitration in the law of criminal proceedings, there are certain changes to be expected in the near future, which will complete the aforementioned institute and which anticipate the implementation of consensuality on a larger scale from that which we have known until now