A New Legal Solution on Recidivism in Serbiаn Criminal Legislation

Abstract

From the adoption of the Criminal Code in 2006 until the latest amendments of 2019, the Serbian criminal legislation treated recidivism as an optional aggravating circumstance, which had its specific legal status in comparison with other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. According to the new legal solution, instead of being optional, recidivism has become a mandatory aggravating circumstance, which together with clearly specified conditions for harsher penalties narrows down the possibility of free judicial decision-making when meting out punishment. The paper answers several questions: whether harsher penalties for recidivists are only the result of continuous tightening of repression at a normative level, whether and to what extent the criminal-law framework has been improved, and whether returning to some solutions, which were not normally applied in court practice, can be marked as approriate to achieve the desired degree of crime prevention. Final critical conculusion is that the new legal solution on recidivism appears regressive, given that the court is strictly bound by the law through oblitatory conditions regarding prior and persistent offending, which is in compliance with the general trend of tightening repression at the normative level and reducing the role of the court to the level of administrative application of the norm.

Some effects of 'pre-crime' concept in combating domestic violence

“…We assume that changes in the criminal legislation contributed to this because as of December 1, 2019, the court cannot reduce the sentence, i.e., pronounce it below the limit prescribed by the law if the perpetrator of domestic violence was previously convicted of an intentional crime (if five years have not passed from the previous conviction or served punishment) (CC, Article 55). It is debatable whether the desired degree of prevention can be achieved with a stricter punishment (Đorđević & Bodrožić, 2020), but the fact is that the share of suspended sentences and reduced sentences for this criminal offence is disproportionally high. The highest number of prison sentences was passed in 2018 and amounted to 768 or 26% of the total number of convictions, then in 2020, with the total of 669 or 25%; then in 2019, with 628 or 27%; and the lowest in 2021, with a total of 589 or 26%.…”

Problem-solving courts in comparative law: Combination of therapy and responsibility

“…Traditionally, Europe's response to drug-related crimes has been predominantly punitive, especially if there are recidivists involved (Đorđević & Bodrožić, 2020). This approach, however, often fails to address the root issues of addiction, leading to high recidivism.…”

Previous prison experience and evaluation of the quality of prison life

“…In the literature, prison deprivations, which include deprivation of freedom, deprivation of safety or security, deprivation of material goods and services, deprivation of independence, deprivation of heterosexual relationships (Sykes, 1958), are marked as an inevitable product of the prison sentence and the overall conditions of its execution (Ilijić, 2012), and their intensity a ects the (un)success of the implemented treatment (Ilijić, 2014). is issue is further complicated for persons who have been sentenced to life imprisonment (Banović, 2022) but also for convicted persons who are recidivists (Đorđević & Bodrožić, 2020). Without going into a deeper analysis, we can agree that modern systems of execution of prison sentences are based on the principle of humane treatment, which implies that persons sentenced to prison are treated in a way that should contribute to reducing the negative consequences of imprisonment to the greatest extent, and thus better preparation for life in freedom.…”