Reflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor law

In the system of protective measures, the Serbian Law on Misdemeanor stipulates two measures of medical character: mandatory treatment of alcohol and psychoactive substances addicts (article 59) and mandatory psychiatric treatment (article 60). This last protective measure was not recognized by prev...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ćorović Emir A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law 2019-01-01
Series:Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu
Subjects:
Online Access:https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0550-2179/2019/0550-21791902505Q.pdf
_version_ 1818278629894782976
author Ćorović Emir A.
author_facet Ćorović Emir A.
author_sort Ćorović Emir A.
collection DOAJ
description In the system of protective measures, the Serbian Law on Misdemeanor stipulates two measures of medical character: mandatory treatment of alcohol and psychoactive substances addicts (article 59) and mandatory psychiatric treatment (article 60). This last protective measure was not recognized by previous misdemeanor legislature, so it was introduced by the current Law on Misdemeanor back in 2013. Mandatory treatment of alcohol and psychoactive substances addicts is designed for misdemeanor perpetrators who are addicted to them, and mandatory psychiatric treatment is designed for incalculable perpetrators and perpetrators with significantly decreased sanity. These protective measures have similarities with medical security measures from Criminal Code, such as mandatory psychiatric treatment and confinement in a psychiatric institution (article 82), mandatory psychiatric treatment at large (article 82), mandatory treatment of drug addicts (article 83) and mandatory treatment of alcohol addicts (article 84). Their similarity also has a legislative cover, for in article 233 of the Law on Implementation of Criminal Sanctions of Serbia it is stipulated that legal provisions of this law about security measures are accordingly applied on implementation of protective measures issued for a misdemeanor. Regardless of conceptual similarity between medical protective measures and medical security measures, there are certain significant differences in their regulative. Firstly, the purpose of security measures is to remove "a states" or "conditions" which can affect the repeated crime (article 78 of The Criminal Code), while the purpose of protective measures is to remove "conditions" which can affect repeated misdemeanor (article 51, §1 of The Law on Misdemeanor). It is not clear why the legislator did not stipulate with protective measures as well that they remove "a states", for this is exactly the basis for medical security measures, which should relate to medical protective measures. Secondly, the Criminal Code has formally separated drug addict treatment from alcohol addict treatment, under the excuse that these are two different types of addiction, while the Law on Misdemeanor stipulated a single protective measure for both these categories of addicts. One can ask why the legislator stipulated two different concepts for similar measures? In the end, with protective measure of mandatory psychiatric treatment the legislator did not stipulate a separate procedure of requirement, what was the case with psychiatric security measures in the Criminal Procedure Code, which regulates the procedure of their provision in detail. Although the Law on Misdemeanor in its processual provisions leads to an adequate application of the Criminal Procedure Code, stipulations of the Code which refer to the procedure of introducing psychiatric security measures can hardly be applied on the procedure of introduction of protective measure of mandatory psychiatric treatment. This comes from the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code stipulated special processual rules referring to psychiatric security measures (the so-called special criminal procedure), which largely differ from general criminal procedure. These differences in procedure apparently were not been considered when the protective measures of mandatory psychiatric treatment were passed.
first_indexed 2024-12-12T23:20:29Z
format Article
id doaj.art-b97493b1101b402792d1998417977fb8
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0550-2179
2406-1255
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-12T23:20:29Z
publishDate 2019-01-01
publisher University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law
record_format Article
series Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu
spelling doaj.art-b97493b1101b402792d1998417977fb82022-12-22T00:08:18ZengUniversity of Novi Sad, Faculty of LawZbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu0550-21792406-12552019-01-015325055160550-21791902505QReflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor lawĆorović Emir A.0Državni univerzitet u Novom Pazaru, Departman za pravne naukeIn the system of protective measures, the Serbian Law on Misdemeanor stipulates two measures of medical character: mandatory treatment of alcohol and psychoactive substances addicts (article 59) and mandatory psychiatric treatment (article 60). This last protective measure was not recognized by previous misdemeanor legislature, so it was introduced by the current Law on Misdemeanor back in 2013. Mandatory treatment of alcohol and psychoactive substances addicts is designed for misdemeanor perpetrators who are addicted to them, and mandatory psychiatric treatment is designed for incalculable perpetrators and perpetrators with significantly decreased sanity. These protective measures have similarities with medical security measures from Criminal Code, such as mandatory psychiatric treatment and confinement in a psychiatric institution (article 82), mandatory psychiatric treatment at large (article 82), mandatory treatment of drug addicts (article 83) and mandatory treatment of alcohol addicts (article 84). Their similarity also has a legislative cover, for in article 233 of the Law on Implementation of Criminal Sanctions of Serbia it is stipulated that legal provisions of this law about security measures are accordingly applied on implementation of protective measures issued for a misdemeanor. Regardless of conceptual similarity between medical protective measures and medical security measures, there are certain significant differences in their regulative. Firstly, the purpose of security measures is to remove "a states" or "conditions" which can affect the repeated crime (article 78 of The Criminal Code), while the purpose of protective measures is to remove "conditions" which can affect repeated misdemeanor (article 51, §1 of The Law on Misdemeanor). It is not clear why the legislator did not stipulate with protective measures as well that they remove "a states", for this is exactly the basis for medical security measures, which should relate to medical protective measures. Secondly, the Criminal Code has formally separated drug addict treatment from alcohol addict treatment, under the excuse that these are two different types of addiction, while the Law on Misdemeanor stipulated a single protective measure for both these categories of addicts. One can ask why the legislator stipulated two different concepts for similar measures? In the end, with protective measure of mandatory psychiatric treatment the legislator did not stipulate a separate procedure of requirement, what was the case with psychiatric security measures in the Criminal Procedure Code, which regulates the procedure of their provision in detail. Although the Law on Misdemeanor in its processual provisions leads to an adequate application of the Criminal Procedure Code, stipulations of the Code which refer to the procedure of introducing psychiatric security measures can hardly be applied on the procedure of introduction of protective measure of mandatory psychiatric treatment. This comes from the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code stipulated special processual rules referring to psychiatric security measures (the so-called special criminal procedure), which largely differ from general criminal procedure. These differences in procedure apparently were not been considered when the protective measures of mandatory psychiatric treatment were passed.https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0550-2179/2019/0550-21791902505Q.pdfmisdemeanor lawmedical protective measuresmedical security measures
spellingShingle Ćorović Emir A.
Reflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor law
Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu
misdemeanor law
medical protective measures
medical security measures
title Reflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor law
title_full Reflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor law
title_fullStr Reflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor law
title_full_unstemmed Reflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor law
title_short Reflection upon protective measures of medical character in Serbian misdemeanor law
title_sort reflection upon protective measures of medical character in serbian misdemeanor law
topic misdemeanor law
medical protective measures
medical security measures
url https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0550-2179/2019/0550-21791902505Q.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT corovicemira reflectionuponprotectivemeasuresofmedicalcharacterinserbianmisdemeanorlaw