[ad_1]
As reported by the court, after examining the criminal case of causing physical pain to her young son and violating public order, the panel of judges decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s complaint requesting that the case be reviewed on appeal.
The decision was made without finding that the courts had incorrectly evaluated the evidence in the case or made mistakes in applying the criminal law, the court said Thursday.
The Court of Cassation upheld the court’s decision that the mother’s actions, when she repeatedly hit her two-year-old son’s palm across the buttocks and arms in public in front of witnesses because she disobeyed and ran into the lane bike, was not an adequate way to discipline the child, but deliberately The violation of public order, according to reliable data from the case, has not been established. Furthermore, according to the court, the necessary consequences of the accused criminal acts have not been demonstrated: causing physical pain to a minor and disturbing the seriousness and order of society.
Furthermore, the SCL stated that the incentives for Kručinskienė’s actions were exclusively personal, determined by his responsibility towards the young child, in order to discipline him so that he did not act dangerously in the future and not cause him physical pain and blatantly disturb seriousness or society order.
According to the SCL, the lower courts evaluated all the circumstances of the case, the context of the situation, which influenced the decision on the woman’s actions: the fact that the child was hit by the clothes (diapers and coveralls) did not cause injuries, both through the buttocks and palms. The blows were made without the objective of physical pain and with the objective of disciplining the child, nurturing him to listen to the mother’s order not to run to a dangerous place. Furthermore, the beatings were accompanied by the mother’s reprimand and the prohibition to flee, which could also have caused the child to cry, and after the witness was beaten while filming E. Kručinskienė’s family, the child did not she cried, the mother walked calmly.
According to the case file, the witnesses reacted in a sensitive way to said maternal and child treatment, reported to the General Assistance Center, but this should not lead to the conclusion that all indications of the composition of the crimes have been identified.
According to the SCL, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights and interests of a child, especially a minor, in accordance with legal acts, educating him only positively when it comes to prosecution, it is necessary to assess the nature of the situation, Whether it is the parents’ physical strength, their physical or mental security, their health, or their life, and this cannot be accomplished by other means, or the corresponding parental reaction has been caused by short-term panic, impotence, and despair at child misbehavior.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in such cases, criminal liability must be decided on an individual basis.
This decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania is final and is not subject to appeal.
In May last year, the Kaunas District Court ruled that E. Kručinskienė had not committed any act showing signs of crime and decided to transfer the case file to the Kaunas County Police Chief Commissariat for an administrative crime.
The trial judge said there was no objective, credible and unequivocal evidence that the minor had suffered physical pain. It was also evaluated that the woman’s actions were not intended to disturb public seriousness, but to raise a child.
Both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer of E. Kručinskienė appealed against this decision.
At the end of October last year, the Kaunas Regional Court, which heard the case on appeal, rejected the prosecutor’s complaint, confirmed the defense lawyer’s complaint and commuted the sentence, annulling the part of the case for which the case file was transferred to a misdemeanor court, for which E. Kručinskienė was completely acquitted.
The pre-trial investigation, which received a strong resonance in society, began after a report was received at the General Assistance Center on September 29, 2018 about a woman who was seen by a passerby in Kaunas Panemunė Park.
During the pre-trial investigation, the services decided to remove the children from the family.
Child rights specialists said the minors had been removed from the family because of the danger they represented, when the family refused to cooperate with police and child protection officers, but acknowledged that errors had been made in responding to the situation.
The fact that the children in the family were in real danger has also been recognized by the court.
The children were then returned to the family.
Prosecutors who filed a complaint with the SCL stated that this case was important in setting a precedent in cases of violence after the so-called Matukas reform, when any violence against children was prohibited.
Prosecutors argued that the SCL’s position was important in setting clear limits on when physical violence reached a level of danger that should already be prosecuted and how the use of physical violence based on the exercise of parental authority was evaluated.
It is not allowed to publish, quote or reproduce the information of the BNS news agency in the media and on the Internet without the written consent of UAB “BNS”.
[ad_2]
