نبذة مختصرة : Za postopek preiskovanja kaznivega dejanja velja, da ga je treba izvajati strokovno in nepristransko. Če se to ne spoštuje, se kot posledica kažejo nerešena kazniva dejanja, nekaznovani storilci in napačne obsodbe, kar ima lahko resne posledice tako za posameznike kot za celotne skupnosti. Avtorji kot najpogostejše dejavnike za neuspešno kriminalistično preiskavo oziroma kazenski pregon navajajo kognitivne pristranskosti, organizacijske pasti in verjetnostne napake, pri čemer se med preiskovalci najpogosteje pojavljajo kognitivne pristranskosti. Da bi ugotovili, ali lahko govorimo o prisotnosti naštetih dejavnikov tudi med slovenskimi preiskovalci, smo uporabili teoretične in empirične metode dela, pri čemer je teoretični del predstavljal pregled teorije, empirični del pa analizo kazenskega spisa in intervjuja. Z analizo primera umora Janka Jamnika, direktorja Kemijskega inštituta, smo tako skušali ugotoviti, kako je zbrane dokaze utemeljila policija in kako je tej utemeljitvi sledilo tožilstvo ter nadalje sodišče v vseh treh sojenjih. Hkrati pa smo skušali ugotoviti, ali so se kateri izmed dejavnikov za neuspešno kriminalistično preiskavo, pojavili tudi v analiziranem primeru, ki glede na teorijo predstavlja neuspeh v kriminalistični preiskavi in sodi v skupino nerešenih kaznivih dejanj. Z izbranimi metodami dela smo prišli do ugotovitve, da je v preučevanem primeru prišlo do pojava kognitivnih pristranskosti, natančneje potrditvene pristranskosti in tunelskega vida, ki sta preiskovalcem onemogočila objektivno vrednotenje dokazov in povzročila pretirano osredotočenost na enega osumljenca. Nadalje je bilo ugotovljeno tudi, da so se pri podajanju izvedenskih mnenj pojavljale vprašljive metode dokazovanja, za katere ni bilo mogoče reči, da so zagotavljale zanesljive in veljavne rezultate. Pojavil se je tudi dvom v nepristranskost sodišča v 2. sojenju, kjer je bilo v izrečeni sodbi mogoče opaziti izrazito naklonjenost obdolžencu. Da bi v prihodnosti omejili oziroma popolnoma odpravili tovrstne neuspehe kriminalističnih preiskav in s tem vzpostavili proces preiskovanja, katerega rezultat bi bili trdni dokazi, ki bi dosegli prepričanost sodišča v krivdo obdolženca, avtorji priporočajo uvajanje dodatnih usposabljanj, povečan nadzor nad delom preiskovalcev in zunanje preglede primerov, ki niso bili uspešno rešeni.
Investigating a crime is expected to be carried out professionally and impartially. If this is not respected, the result is unsolved crimes, unpunished offenders, and wrongful convictions. This has severe consequences for individuals and communities. The authors identified cognitive biases, organizational traps, and probability errors as the most common factors in failed criminal investigations or prosecutions, with cognitive biases being the most common among investigators. To determine whether these factors are also present among Slovenian investigators, we used theoretical and empirical methods, the theoretical part being a review of theory and the empirical part an analysis of the criminal case file and an interview. By analysing the case of the murder of Janko Jamnik, the director of the National Institute of Chemistry, we tried to establish how the police justified the evidence gathered and how this justification was followed by the prosecution and then by the court in each of the three trials. At the same time, we tried to determine whether any of the factors responsible for the failure of the criminal investigation were also present in the analysed case, which, according to the theory, represents a failure of the criminal investigation and falls within the category of unsolved crimes. The methods chosen for our work led us to conclude that the case under review was characterised by cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias and tunnel vision. This prevented the investigators from objectively evaluating the evidence and led to an excessive focus on one suspect. Furthermore, it was also found that questionable evidence methods were used in providing expert opinions, which could not be said to have provided reliable and valid results. Additionally, doubts were raised about the impartiality of the court in the second trial, where the verdict was clearly favourable to the defendant. To limit or eliminate such failures in criminal investigations in the future and thus to establish an investigative process that results in solid evidence that would convince the court of the guilt of the accused, the authors recommend the introduction of additional training, increased supervision of the work of investigators, and external reviews of cases that have not been successfully solved.
Processing Request
No Comments.