Main topic

LAW AND POLITICS

ON THE NOTION AND LEGAL NATURE OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL INCITEMENT

Abstract

In the Serbian criminal legislation, as well as in most foreign legislations, the starting point is that under certain conditions, the instigator who unsuccessfully induces another to commit a crime also deserves punishment. Criminalpolitically, the punishability of unsuccessful (attempted) incitement is justified by a special danger to the protected good, which creates a person in the role of instigator by starting a causal course over which he no longer has power. Punishment, however, is conditioned by the nature and gravity of the crime to which it was incited. Although the provision prescribing unsuccessful incitement in Serbian Criminal Code is grouped among the provisions regulating complicity, it due to the absence of the main offence, ie. non-existence of a perpetrator of a criminal offence, does not represent a form of complicity, but a specific punishable preparatory action, which could be claimed to have characteristics of separate crime. In addition to the issue of the legal nature of unsuccessful incitement, the paper also discusses its manifestations, as well as the preconditions for the application of Article 34 (2) of the Criminal Code, which in Serbian criminal law stipulates liability for unsuccessful incitement. In considering these issues, the author uses the available domestic, as well as relevant foreign, primarily German literature, which pays somewhat more attention to this issue.

keywords :

References

    • Aćimović, M. Miodrag. 1937. Krivično pravo. Opšti deo. Subotica.
    • Bačić, Franjo. 1986. Krivično pravo. Opći dio. Zagreb.
    • Bloy, René. 1992. “Grund und Grenzen der Strafbarkeit der mißlungenen Anstiftung”. Juristische Rundschau (12), 493-497.
    • Bock, Dennis. 2008. “Die Anstiftung des zur Tat bereits Entschlossenen – zum Begriff des »alias« oder »omnimodo facturus«”. Juristische Rundschau (4), 143-146.
    • Bock, Dennis. 2018. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Berlin: Springer.
    • Card, Richard. 2012. Card, Cross and Jones Criminal Law. Oxford.
    • Fischer, Thomas. 2011. Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze. München.
    • Frank, Stanko. 1950. Kazneno pravo. Bilješke o Općem dijelu Krivičnog zakonika od 4. XII 1947. Zagreb.
    • Gropp, Walter. 2015. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Berlin: Springer.
    • Jefferson, Michael. 2013. Criminal Law. Harlow (etc).
    • Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich. 1978. Lehrbuch des Strafrects. Allgemeiner Teil. Berlin.
    • Jovančević, Nedeljko. 2008. Podstrekavanje – oblik saučesništva i samostalno krivično delo. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
    • Kambovski, Vlado. 2006. Kazneno pravo. Opšt del. Skopje.
    • Kandić, Zorica. 1981. „Pravna priroda i kažnjivost neuspelog podstrekavanja”, Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke (2), 235-249.
    • Kindhäuser, Urs. 2011. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Baden-Baden.
    • Krivični zakonik [KZ] “Sl. glasnik RS”, br. 85/2005, 88/2005 – ispr., 107/2005 – ispr., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016 i 35/2019.
    • Kühl, Kristian. 2008. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. München.
    • Lazarević, Ljubiša. 2006. Komentar Krivičnog zakonika. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
    • Marković, Božidar. 1909. Krivično pravo. Druga knjiga. Izradio: Živko Topalović, Beograd.
    • Objašnjenja uz Nacrt Krivičnog zakonika FNRJ. 1951. Beograd: Službeni list.
    • Pijade , Moša. 1948. Komentar Opšteg dela Krivičnog zakonika. Beograd.
    • Roxin, Claus. 2003. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Band II. Besondere Erscheinungsformen der Straftat. München.
    • Samaha, Joel. 2011. Criminal Law. Wadsworth.
    • Schünemann, Bernd. 2007. Leipziger Kommentar. Strafgesetzbuch, Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.
    • Srzentić, Nikola, Stajić Aleksandar i Ljubiša Lazarević. 2000. Krivično pravo. Opšti deo. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
    • Stojanović, Zoran. 2014. „Položaj saučesnika u krivičnom pravu: između akcesornosti i samostalnosti”, u: Kaznena reakcija u Srbiji. IV deo, ur. Đorđe Ignjatović, 1-16. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
    • Stojanović, Zoran. 2020. Krivično pravo. Opšti deo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
    • Stratenwerth, Günter and Lothan Kuhlen. 2011. Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. München.
    • Tahović, Janko. 1956. Komentar Krivičnog zakonika. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
    • Vuković, Igor. 2016. „Značaj određenosti dela izvršioca za postojanje podstrekavanja i javno pozivanje na vršenje krivičnog dela”, Revija za kriminologiju i krivično pravo (2-3), Crimen (3), 311-326.
    • Zlatarić, Bogdan. 1956. Krivični zakonik u praktičnoj primjeni. I. Svezak. Opći dio. Zagreb: Narodne novine.
    • Welzel, Hans. 1965. Das Deutsche Strafrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung. Berlin.
PERIODICS Serbian Political Thought 3/2020 3/2020 УДК 343.237 269-294
ç