One can’t but acknowledge the enormous job by Jaan Sootak, which he has contributed to the science of criminology and to elaboration and utilisation of the penal law. Still the author of the article has got some questions about the subject from the point of view of a psychologist of justice.

The new criminal jurisdiction is based on freedom of will. But psychologists observe human’s behaviour determined, trying to find out determinants. As a matter of fact the external influences on human behaviour are often underestimated and very little accepted in court. The author doesn’t agree with the conclusion by J. Sootak according to which nobody, not even an expert knows or can find out not even if using tests what was going on in suspect’s consciousness at the moment of crime. In this case as the author summarises oral judgement procedure would be pointless, only the objects could be used as evidences and adjudication should be left to computers not lawyers.

Also the author doesn’t agree with another conclusion by J. Sootak according to which one can’t really know how a person neutralises his/her instincts, unconscious currents or temptations. In this case the author suggests that the lawyers should more collaborate with psychologists and psychiatrists.

Theoretical basis of the new criminal jurisdiction and inflexibility in putting it into practice are the main reasons of over-criminalisation of the society according to the author.


Sisenege veebiväljaandesse