Cu privire la pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare,
va pot spune faptul ca instanta, a avut in
vedere, la individualizarea pedepsei
aspectele prevazute de art. 74 NCP,
respectiv: gravitatea infractiunii savarsite
si periculozitatea infractorului. Faptul ca
Pierre si-a recunoscut vinovatia, a facut
ca acesta sa beneficieze cu o reducere de
1/3 a limitelor de pedeapsa.
Amanarea aplicarii pedepsei si
suspendarea pedepsei sub supraveghere,
constituie in dreptul penal, masuri de
individualizare a pedepsei.
Conform art. 83 NCP, pentru a se aplica
amanarea pedepsei, trebuie indeplinite
urmatoarele conditii:
- pedeapsa stabilita sa fie amenda sau
inchisoarea de maximum 2 ani;
- infractorul sa nu mai fi fost condamnat
la pedeapsa inchisorii;
- infractorul sa isi fi dat acordul pentru a
presta o munca neremunerata in folosul
comunitatii;
- in raport de conduita infractorului,
precum si de posibilitatile sale de
indreptare, instanta apreciaza ca aplicarea
imediata a unei pedepse nu este necesara,
dar se impune supraveghera sa pentru o
perioada de 2 ani.
Conform art. 91 NPC, pentru a se aplica
suspendarea executarii pedepsei sub
supraveghere, trebuie indeplinite
urmatoarele conditii:
- pedeapsa aplicata sa fie pedeapsa
inchisorii de cel mult 3 ani;
- infractorul nu a mai fost condamnat
anterior la pedeapsa inchisorii mai mare
de 1 an;
- infractorul sa isi fi dat acordul pentru a
presta o munca in folosul comunitatii;
- in raport de conduita infractorului,
Regarding the sentence of 1 year of prison, I
can tell you, that the court took into account
on the individualization of punishment, the
aspects provided by art. 74 NCP, respectively
the seriousness of the crime committed and the
danger of the offender.
The fact that Pierre acknowledged his guilt
made him receive a 1/3 reduction in penalty
limits.
The postponement of punishment and
suspension of punishment under survelillance,
in criminal law are measures to individualize
the punishments.
According to art. 83 NCP, to apply the
postponemnt of the punishment, the following
conditions must be met:
- The penalty set to be a fine or imprisonment
for a maximum of 2 years;
- The offender has not been previously
sentenced to prison;
- The offender has agreed to provide unpaid
community work;
- In the report to the offender`s conduct, as
well as its possibilities of straightening,the
court appreciates that the application of
punishment is not necessary, but it requires a
supervision for a period of 2 years.
According to art. 91 NCP, to apply the
suspension of punishment under survelillance,
the following conditions must be met:
- The penalty set to be imprisonment for a
maximum of 3 years;
- The offender has not been previously
convicted of more than one year's
imprisonment
- The offender has agreed to provide unpaid
community work;
precum si de posibilitatile sale de
indreptare, instanta apreciaza ca aplicarea
imediata a unei pedepse nu este necesara,
dar se impune supraveghera sa pentru o
perioada, ce poate fi cuprinsa intre 2-4
ani.
Dupa cum putem observa diferentele
dintre aceste institutii sunt reprezentate
de: maximul pedepsei aplicate, termenul
de supraveghere, respectiv faptul daca
infractorul a fost sau nu condamnat la
pedeapsa inchisorii anterior.
Cazierul judiciar: Unul dintre efectele
amanarii aplicarii pedepsei, este faptul ca
persoanei nu i se mai aplică pedeapsa şi
nu este supusă niciunei decăderi,
interdicţii sau incapacităţi ce ar putea
decurge din infracţiunea săvârşită, dacă
nu a săvârşit din nou o infracţiune până la
expirarea termenului de supraveghere, nu
s-a dispus revocarea amânării şi nu s-a
descoperit o cauză de anulare. Asadar,
acest lucru inseamna printre altele, si
faptul ca aceasta infractiune nu va fi
inregistrata in cazierul judiciar, astfel ca
nu este cazul de a se vorbi despre
reabilitarea penala.
Cu privire la serviciul de probatiune, pot
sa va spun ca exista o structura la nivelul
fiecarui judet, in care consilierii de
probatiune isi desfasoara activitatea.
Inteleg faptul ca lui Pierre ii va fi dificil
sa se intalneasca cu consilierul de
probatiune la diferite intervale de timp,
insa masurile dispuse de catre instanta,
respectiv cele de la art. 85 NCP, sunt
obligatorii. Daca acesta nu va respecta
aceste masuri, instanta dispune, la cererea
consilierului de probatiune sau a
procurorului, executarea pedepsei.
Aceste masuri vor fi obligatorii dupa
-In the report to the offender`s conduct, as well
as its possibilities of straightening,the court
appreciates that the application of punishment
is not necessary, but it requires a supervision
for a period between 2-4 years.
As we can see, the differences between these
institutions are represented by: the maximum
penalty applied, the term of supervision,
respectively the fact that the offender was or
was not sentenced previous to a prison
sentence.
Criminal record: One of the effects of
postponing the punishment is the fact that the
person is no longer subject to punishment and
is not subjected to any deviations, prohibitions
or incapacities that may result from the crime
committed, unless he has again committed a
crime until the expiry of the term, the
revocation of the postponement was not
ordered and no cause for annulment was found.
So, this means, among other things, that this
crime will not be recorded in the criminal
record, so it is not the case to talk about
criminal rehabilitation.
Regarding the probation, I can tell you that
there is a structure at the level of each country,
in which the probation counselors operates. I
understand the fact that for Pierre is it will be
difficult to meet with the probation counselor
at different time intervals, but the measures
established on court`s decision, respectively
those of art. 85 NCP, are required. If he fails to
comply with these measures, at the request of
the probation counselor or the prosecutor, the
court shall order the execution of the sentence.
ramanerea definitiva a hotararii. In acest
moment, aceasta hotarare poate fi atacata
cu apel, atat de catre noi cat si de catre
procuror, in termen de 10 zile de la
comunicare.
Cu privire la carnetul de conducere,
mentionez ca potrivit art. 103. OUG
195/2002 : “Suspendarea exercitării
dreptului de a conduce autovehicule şi
tractoare agricole sau forestiere se
dispune: c) pentru o perioadă de 90 de
zile când fapta conducătorului de
autovehicul, tractor agricol sau forestier
ori tramvai a fost urmărită ca infracţiune
la regimul circulaţiei pe drumurile
publice, precum şi în cazul accidentului
de circulaţie din care a rezultat decesul
sau vătămarea corporală a unei persoane
şi instanţa de judecată sau procurorul a
dispus clasarea, renunţarea la urmărirea
penală, renunţarea la aplicarea pedepsei
sau amânarea aplicării pedepsei
Asadar, dupa ce decizia instantei devine
definitiva, el poate sa isi ridice carnetul
de conducere de la autoritatile care i l-au
ridicat.
These measures will be mandatory after the
court`s decision is final. At this moment the
court`s decision can be appealed, both by us
and by the prosecutor, within 10 days of
communication.
Regarding his driver license, I mention that
according to art. 103 OUG 195/2002:
“"Suspension of the exercise of the right to
drive motor vehicles and agricultural or
forestry tractors is ordered: c) For a period of
90 days when the deed of the driver of a motor
vehicle, agricultural or forestry tractor or
tram, was prosecuted as a criminal offense
against the traffic on public roads as well as in
the case of a traffic accident resulting in the
death or personal injury of a person; and The
court or prosecutor has ordered the quashing,
abandoning of the prosecution, giving up
punishment or postponing the punishment”.
Therefore, after the Court decision becomes
final, he can pick up his driver's license from
the authorities that took it.