Některé zvláštní způsoby dokazování a kriminalistické způsoby jejich provedení

Iveta ROHELOVÁ

Master's thesis

Some specific methods of evidence and forensic methods of implementing

Abstract:

Tato diplomová práce se zabývá problematikou některých zvláštních způsobů dokazování a to, jak z hlediska trestního práva procesního, tak především z hlediska kriminalistického. Platnou právní úpravou jsou zvláštní způsoby dokazování zakotveny v Trestním řádu, v ustanoveních § 104a - § 104e. Toto zakotvení se v některých ohledech odlišuje od praxe kriminalistické a z toho důvodu je potřebné na ty to odlišnosti poukázat. Celá práce tedy poukazuje na rozdíly, ale i společné vlastnosti obou úprav a tyto vlastnosti doplňuje o příklady z praxe. Praktické příklady vychází z půdy zahraniční, ale zejména z půdy domácí, získané, mnou, z metodicky vedených rozhovorů (interview) s odborníky z oblasti kriminalistiky. Veškerá interview, zapracovaná výše v textu, jsou nedílnou součástí celé diplomové práce a jejich doslovný přepis je uveden v přílohách. Všechny zvláštní způsoby dokazování jsou pak podrobně rozebrány v jednotlivých kapitolách, pro přehlednost rozdělených do podkapitol. Konkrétně podkapitol zákonné úpravy, podkapitol kriminalistického pohledu a podkapitol praxe.

Abstract:

In my diploma thesis entitled "Some specific methods of evidence and forensic methods of implementing" I tried to handle this issue from the perspective of the criminal law, and from the perspective of criminology. My attention was devoted solely and only to the five specific methods of evidence namely confrontation, recognition, reconstruction, investigating allegations of trial and review of the site. The introductory part was focused on general information relating to evidence in criminal proceedings, and then on criminology technology and tactics commonly used in practice. The intention of this introductory passage was a brief excursion into the issue. The main and most important part of the text consists of chapters focusing on specific individual special methods of evidence. Each of these chapters is divided into three parts, subchapters. The first one adresses to the criminal law concept of a particular method of evidence, the second part is written from the perspective of criminology and the last, third part, focuses on case law and cases from practice. Practical examples are included, except the third subchapter, in the preceding two sub-sections as well because of the suitability of the case note to explain some of the theoretical concepts. This type of division is because of better visibility, which in my opinion is very important in order to distinguish between criminal and forensic concepts, since both of these - let me call then - disciplines (criminal and forensic), although closely connected and work together in parallel, often stand in opposition. The opposition and clash of interests that usually arises in solving a particular problem is due to the differing views of theorists in the field of criminal law and practitioners in the field of criminology, each of which proceeds according to clearly established rules of their branch. The goal I set at the beginning was to elaboráte on the topic of special methods to handle complex evidence, point out the undoubted importance of these special investigative measures, analyse and accurately describe their implementation and to discuss the potential pitfalls in implementing these special methods of evidence. For me the key point of this work is the chapter on interviews with experts in forensic practice. The questions were carefully compiled and both former criminologists had the opportunity to become acquainted with them about a month before the scheduled "face to face" meeting. All sessions (only one left) were run in a so-called neutral place, and it was a major contribution towards the development and elaboration of responses to my questions. I also had the opportunity to learn about the way they proceed to solve cases in practice. I had the opportunity to apply this logical approach to the tasks that I have been awarded. The tasks and right answers are included in this thesis (see Attachement No.10). All the tasks are in the style of "school play", but their application in practice is not in doubt. Since I am not an expert-founded, who may build on experience, I will accommodate all the work so as to offer the maximum possible amount of information. This maximum amount of information and the descriptive style of the entire work, I then tried to complement by adding some practical knowledge of experts in the field of criminology, with whom I had the opportunity to work in the gradual emergence of this work. I sincerely hope that the practical examples that I have incorporated into the text above, will make my thesis more interesting, readable and open to a wider audience than if it had been only focused on the analysis of literature, judicial decisions, technical articles and other resources intended only for professionals in the field of criminal law.

Keywords

Dokazování, zvláštní způsoby dokazování, konfrontace, rekognice, rekonstrukce, vyšetřovací pokus, prověrka výpovědi na místě, protokol, kriminalistika, kriminologie

Language used: Czech

Date on which the thesis was submitted / produced: 29. 6. 2011

Identifier: 116610

Thesis defence

• Supervisor: Prof. JUDr. Ing. Viktor Porada, DrSc.

PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY IN OLOMOUC

Faculty of Law

Master programme / field:
Law and Jurisprudence / Law