| Abstract [eng] |
This master's thesis examines the problems of establishing causality in cases involving crimes against human life, environmental protection, and traffic accidents. The first part of the thesis examines the theoretical aspects of causal connection – its concept, significance, links with other scientific disciplines, links between causality and causal connection, types of causal connection, and theories. It has been established that the fundamental ideas and problems of causal connection in criminal law are examined in philosophical sources. Philosophers have given this relationship the term "causality," but they clearly raise the issue of unforeseen circumstances that interfere with causality, making it difficult or impossible to establish cause and effect. This problem is also noticeable when examining the causal relationship in criminal law. It is believed that the erroneous juxtaposition of the objective feature of causality with the subjective feature of guilt arose from philosophical ideas of causality, which in fact laid the foundations for the theories of causality known in law. The second part of the thesis examines problematic aspects related to causation in specific categories of cases. It has been established that in cases involving crimes against human life, traffic violations, and environmental protection violations, there is a problem in establishing a causal link based on the subjective elements of a crime, such as guilt. In exceptional cases where expert conclusions cannot provide an unambiguous answer, only in environmental protection cases is causation not established and it is stated that there is no crime. However, if the same situation arises in the context of traffic safety crimes, courts tend to "correct" the shortcomings of expert investigations based on the logical sequence of events and other evidence gathered in the case, which casts doubt on the accuracy of the conclusions, since the actual causal link requires a mechanical understanding of cause and effect based on reliable scientific evidence. In cases involving crimes against human life, the shortcomings of expert conclusions are compensated for by the same principle. There is also a problem that when circumstances other than expert conclusions interfere with the causal link, neither the tests for establishing a causal link nor the tests for establishing a causal link help to achieve clarity in cases. It should be noted that the recommended tests are too simple and primitive to actually help solve the problems that arise in court practice in complex, real-life situations. |
