Scholarly record
SETTLEMENT IN RESOLUTION OF CRIMINAL CONFLICTS
Abstract
In response to the recent dynamics of society development, European states have been considering the concept of settlement as an alternative means of criminal conflict resolution. This alternative is particularly important in the context of European Parliament and Council Directive 2012/29/ES (25 October 2012), which defines the rights of crime victims as well as minimum standarts of support and defence. Criminal procedure resolves certain types of conflicts. Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law (henceforth the CPL) of Latvia [1], defines the aim of the law emphasizing the fact that the criminal procedure secures the effective application of the criminal law norms and fair adjustment of relevant legal relations without justified interference into a person's life. Legislators have indicated the fair resolution of a conflict, emerged as a result of a criminal act, as one of the ways to attain the aim. Reconciliation as a criminal conflict resolution in the Latvian criminal procedure is best realized as amicable settlement. This paper analyzes various perspectives on the use of a settlement in the resolution of criminal conflicts and offers a new proposal for enhancing the CPL. In addition, the paper analyzes legal norms and identifies various perspectives of theoreticians of the criminal procedure law with pertinence to the concept of settlement. This paper also offers a unique perspective on a wider use of settlement in the resolution of criminal conflicts and proposes to implement amendments into the CPL. Amicable settlement is considered both a tool restoring justice and means to reduce harm created by a criminal act. The foundation of justice restoration is not punishment but reconciliation and compensation for the caused harm. It embodies yet another perspective on public response to a committed criminal act. In society in which punishment is seen as a repayment, the victim gets the least because the interests of the state and abstract society are prioritized. Application of amicable settlement would reduce the numbers of criminal procedures, would reduce law enforcement workload, would speed up the process of criminals' resocialization, would facilitate the healing process for victims and would facilitate victims' reintegration into society, would educate the society and would form the trust in the ability to take responsibility.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References11
Criminal Procedure Law. 01.10.2005. Law of Republic of Latvia. www.vvc.gov.lv
Folberg J. Mediation: The Roles of Advocate and Neutral, Aspen, 2006.Torzs E. (2011) Victim – Offender Mediation in Hungary. European Forum for Restorative Justice, september 2011, Volume 12, issue 2. http://euforumrj.org/assets/upload/Vol_12_Issue2.pdf, 1 - 3 p.
Van Ness D., Heetdergs Strong K. (2010) Restoring Justice, Fourth Edition: An Introduction to Restorative Justice. United States of America: Anderson Publishing Co. 259 p.
Zehr H., Gohar A. (2002) The little book of restorative justice. PA: Good Books, 89 p.
Judins A. Atjaunojošā justīcija nepilngadīgo noziedzības kontekstā: Baltijas valstis Eiropas dimensijā.// http://www.at.gov.lv/files/docs/2011/atjaunojosa%20justicija.pdf
Zahars V. Latvijas kriminālpolitika: retrospekcija un nākotnes vīzija. Daugavpils, DU Akadēmiskais apgāds „Saule”, 2011. 84. lpp.
Encyklopedia of Crime and Punishment. Ed.D. Levinson. London, 2002., p.1665.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Eredics and Mária Vassné Sápi.C-205/09. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-205/09
Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:315:0057:0073:EN:PDF
Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departamenta 2010. gada 23. februāra lēmums lietā Nr. SKK–102.
Council of Europe: Recommendation No. R(86) 12 Concerning Measures to Prevent and Reduce the Excessive Workload in the Courts. http://www.rj4all.info/library/council-europe-recommendation-no-r86-12-concerning-measures-prevent-and-reduce-excessive
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
