No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Restitution to Victims of Criminal Offences in Slovenia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2025
Extract
In ancient times people resolved or sharpened the conflicts between the offender and the victim at the beginning among themselves (individual revenge, composition) and later on with the help of the state authority or its institutions (composition, punishment). Nowadays, it is difficult to evaluate which was the main reason for the authority's intervention in resolving private conflicts. Let us quote two examples. Vasiljevic is of the opinion that in the old accusatory procedure the pursuit could have been abandoned even if necessary, due to the lack of knowledge, incapacity or intimidation of the victim on one hand and on the other, it was possible to charge the person for the reason of revenge or other negative motives. He refers to the comedies of Aristophanes illustrating the deficiencies of private accusatory procedure (Vasiljevic, p. 18). In the opinion of Mueller and Cooper « the rights of selfhelp were regulated and formalized by the state so as to limit their exercise and theoretically, to prevent divisive feuds and the exploitation of the weak by strong… By the Middle Ages, the individual harmed in any way must always have recourse to law rather than taking the matter into his own hands. In terms of victim compensation, the price of state assistance in bringing the wrongdoer to justice soon becomes disproportionately high» (p. 86). After this time the interests of the victim have been replaced by the interests of the authority. From the sociological point of view the interests of the victim have been the most neglected in the inquisitory procedure.
Information
- Type
- IV. — Micro-Criminology
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1978 International Society for Criminology
References
References
ACIMOVIC, (M.): «Polozaj ostecenog medju gradjanima i pred krivicnim sudom», Gledista, Beograd, 1970, n° 4, pp. 627–636.Google Scholar
BAVCON, (L.), VODOPIVEC, (K.), UDERMAN, (B.): «Individualizacija kazni v praksi nasih sodisc», Institut za kriminologijo pri pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani, publ. 12, 1968.Google Scholar
BAYER, (M.): «Kriteriji za odmjeravanje kazne od strane sudova u Sloveniji», Institut za kriminologijo pri pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani, publ. 10, 1967.Google Scholar
CARIC, (A.): «Odskodnina zrtvi kaznivega dejanja v sodobnem kazenskem pravu», Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, Ljubljana, 1970, n° 2 pp. 82-88.Google Scholar
CHRISTIE, (N.): «Conflicts as property», The British Journal of Criminology, London, 1977. n° 1. pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GALAWAY, (B.): «The Use of Restitution», Crime and Delinquency, N.J., Hachensack, 1977, n° 1, pp. 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, (N.): «Reparation by the offender to the victim as a method of rehabilitation for both»; in Victimology: A new Focus, ed. by Drapkin, Israel and Viano, Emilio, vol. II, Lexington, Lexington Books, 1974, pp. 193–205.Google Scholar
GREBING, (G.): «Die Verhandlungen der III. Sektion über das Thema Die Entschädigung des durch eine Straftat Verletzten», Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, Berlin, 1975, n° 2, pp. 472–485.Google Scholar
GVOZDIC, (P.): «Priviligirani svjedoci iz cl. 211 st. 1 toc. 2 ZKP», Nasa zakonitost, Zagreb, 1971, n° 3, pp. 210–220.Google Scholar
INTERNATIONAL STUDY INSTITUTE ON VICTIMOLOGY: Conclusions and recommendations, Bellagio, Italy, July 1-12, 1975; Victimology, Washington, 1976, n° 1, pp. 130–153.Google Scholar
JACOB, (R.B.): «Reparation or Restitution by the Criminal Offender to his Victim: Applicability of an Ancient Concept in the Modern Correctional Process», The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Baltimore, 1970, n° 2, pp. 152–167.Google Scholar
KOBE, (P.): «Polozaj zrtve v sodnem postopku s posebnim ozirom na adhezijski postopek», Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, Ljubljana, 1977, n° 1, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
LAMBORN, (L.L.): «Crime Victim Compensations: Theory and Practice in the Second Decade», Victimology, Washington, n° 4, pp. 503–516.Google Scholar
LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA: «Restitution and compensation», Working papers 5 and 6, October 1974, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, Ottawa, 1975, n° 2, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA: «Diversion», Working paper 7, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, Ottawa, 1975, n° 3, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
LINDEN, (M.A.): «Restitution, Compensation for Victims of Crime and Canadian Criminal Law», Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, Ottawa, 1977, n° 1, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
MARKOVIC, (M.): «Neka pitanja u vezi sa pravnim pojmom stete, njenih vidova i odredjivanja naknade», Pravni zbornik, Titograd, 1975, n° 1. pp. 35–49.Google Scholar
McLEAN, (I.): «Compensation and Restitution Orders», The Criminal Law Review, January 1973, pp. 3–6.Google Scholar
MENDELSOHN, (B.): «Victimology and Contemporary Society's Trends», Victimology, Washington, 1976, n° 1, pp. 8–28.Google Scholar
MIKLAVCIC, (F.): «Odskodnina za nepremozenjsko skodo pri telesnih poskodbah», Pravnik, Ljubljana, 1973, nos 10-12, pp. 419–429.Google Scholar
MISIC, (V.): «Uticaj krivicnog postupka na tok gradjanske parnice i uticaj krivicne presude na gradjansku presudu i obratno», Glasnik advokatske komore u SAP Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1972, n° 6, pp. 12–21; n° 7, pp. 1-7.Google Scholar
MUELLER, (O.W.G.), COOPER, (H.H.A.): «Society and the Victim: Alternative Responses», in Victimology: A New Focus, ed. by Israel Drapkin and Emilio Viano, Vol. II, Lexington, Lexington Books, 1974, pp. 85–101.Google Scholar
OSTROUMOV, (S.S.), FRANK, (L.V.): «O viktimologii i viktimnosti», Sovjetskoje gosudarstvo i pravo, Moskva, 1976, n° 4, pp. 74–79.Google Scholar
PALMER, (W.J.): «Pre-Arrest Diversion: Victim Confrontation», Federal Probation, Washington, 1974, n° 3, pp. 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PECAR, (J.), VODOPIVEC, (K.), UDERMAN, (B.), KROFLIC, (M.): «Poravnalni sveti», Institut za kriminologijo pri pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani, 1968, pub. 11.Google Scholar
RESOLUTIONS DU XIe CONGRES INTERNATIONAL DE DROIT PENAL, (Budapest, 9-14 September 1974): Revue internationale de droit pénal, Pau (France), 1974, n° 3-4, pp. 685–689.Google Scholar
SCHAFER, (S.): «Compensation of Victims of Criminal Offenses», Revue internationale de droit pénal, Pau (France), 1973, n° 1-2, pp. 105–135.Google Scholar
SELIH, (A.). KOBE (P.): «L'indemnisation des victimes d'infraction: Yougoslavie», Revue internationale de droit pénal, Pau. (France), 1973, n° 1-2. pp. 294–313.Google Scholar
VASILJEVIC, (T.): «Sistem krivienog procesnog prava», Beograd, Zavod za izdavanie udjbenika socijalisticne republike Srbije. 2nd ed., 1971.Google Scholar
VASILJEVIC, (T.), GRUBAC, (M), KUHAJDA, (V.), BAJIC, (L.), MATIC, (V.): Primena ustanova krivienog procesnog prava u sudovima Vojvodine, Zbornik radova VIII, Novi Sad, Pravni fakultet u Novom Sadu, 1974, pp. 129–196.Google Scholar
WILLIAMS, (L.V.), FISCH, (M.): «A proposed Model for Individualized Offender Restitution through State Victim Compensation», in Victimology: A New Focus, ed. by Israel Drapkin and Emilio Viano, Vol. II, Lexington, Lexington Books. 1974, pp. 155–165.Google Scholar
WOLFGANG, (E.M.): «Making the Criminal Justice System Accountable», Crime and Delinquency, Paramus N.J., National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1972, n° 1. pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
LAWS
Criminal Code — Collection of Yugoslav Laws, Institute of comparative Law, Vol. XI, Beograd, 1964 — Translation and Comments by Mirjan Damaska.Google Scholar
Code of Criminal Procedure — Collection of Yugoslav Laws, Institute of Comparative Law, Vol. XIX, Beograd, 1969 — Foreword, Translation and Comments by Mirjan Damaska.Google Scholar
Kazenski zakon Socialisticne Federativne republike Jugoslavije — Uradni list S.R.S., Ljubljana, 1976.Google Scholar
Kazenski zakon socialisticne republike Slovenije — Uradni list S.R.S., Ljubljana, 1977.Google Scholar