VREDNOTENJE ČUSTEV V PRAVU - Senekovič, Alekseja (A. Senekovič, 2010)
Človek in pravo sta dandanes neločljivo povezana, kar potrjuje potreba človeka po pravnem urejanju družbenih odnosov, kakor tudi odvisnost prava od človeka kot ustvarjalca in uporabnika prava. Prav tako je med pravom in psihologijo mogoče opaziti mnogo vzporednic in povezav. Psihološka dognanja večkrat pomagajo najti odgovore pri razreševanju različnih konkretnih pravnih primerov. Za pravo samo je pomembnejši pravni človek, naravni človek je s svojimi številnimi, za pravo nezanimivimi, lastnostmi preobsežen. Globlje kot pogledamo v človeka, več plasti, ki ga sestavljajo, vidimo. Naše čustveno telo vsakodnevno vpliva na nas in na okolico, pa če se tega zavedamo ali ne. Bolj kot se zavedamo čustvenih odzivov in obrambnih mehanizmov, bolj razumemo njihov pomen in sami sebe. Koliko je naš notranji svet misli, želja, namenov in stališč sploh pomemben za pravo? Za čustva se pravo ne zanima vse do takrat, ko se začnejo izražati, pozunanjati na način, ki je za pravo sporen. V čem se storilci kaznivih dejanj razlikujejo od nas, tičijo vzroki za njihovo prestopniško vedenje v njih samih, ali izvirajo iz okolja, v katerega so bili postavljeni? Kriminološke teorije dajejo različne odgovore, zdi pa se, da vsaka osvetljuje samo del resnice. Pri razžalitvi kot obliki čustvenega nasilja se pojavi vprašanje, ali se mora oseba, kateri je bila žalitev namenja, čutiti razžaljeno ali ne. Razžalitev časti in dobrega imena je kot kaznivo dejanje in civilni delikt zanimiva s stališča upoštevanja oziroma neupoštevanja subjektivnih in objektivnih kriterijev razžalitve, zaradi katerih sploh lahko govorimo o kaznivem dejanju razžalitve in o odškodninski odgovornosti za nastalo premoženjsko oziroma nepremoženjsko škodo. S tem, ko kdo prestopi naše meje, ki so pogosto hkrati tudi pravno varovane meje, se v nas ponavadi porodijo čustva, s katerimi želimo prestopniku pokazati, da nas je njegovo ravnanje ali vedenje prizadelo in si želimo, da bi bil kaznovan. Z izraženo jezo želimo doseči spremembo njegovega vedenja. Bolj kot je dejanje nesprejemljivo za družbo, večja verjetnost je, da bomo do storilca čutili prezir oziroma sovraštvo. Dosmrtni zapor in smrtna kazen sta projekciji prezira in sovraštva. V obeh primerih je predstava o prestopniku dehumanizirana, saj ga dojemamo kot ne dovolj vrednega. Pri kazenskih sankcijah se vedno pojavlja vprašanje, ali naj poskušajo prestopnika tudi prevzgojiti ali ga naj samo kaznujejo. The man and the law are inseparably connected the reason for this is reflected in the man’s need of the legal regulation of social relations as well as the dependence of law upon man as the creator and the user of law. There are also many parallels and connections between law and psychology, that are interwoven in many a point. Psychological knowledge often helps us find the answers in solving various concrete legal cases. For the law itself the legal person is more important than the natural person, being too extensive with his many attributes, not interesting for the law. The deeper we look in a human being, the more layers we see. Our emotional body constantly affects us and the neighborhood, regardless of our awareness. The more we are aware of emotional responses and defense mechanisms, the more we understand their importance and ourselves. How important for the law is our inner world of thoughts, desires, intentions and positions? The law is not interested in the emotions until they are expressed in a way that is a legal issue. In what way the criminals are different from us, are the reasons for their juvenile behavior in themselves or do they come from the environment in which they were raised? Criminological theories give different answers, and each illuminates only part of the answer. In the case of defamation as a form of emotional violence, the question whether the person, the defamation was meant for, should feel offended or not appears. Defamation of one’s honor and good name as a criminal offense and tortious act is interesting from the standpoint of considering or not considering the subjective and objective criteria of defamation, according to which we can talk about the criminal offence of defamation and the civil liability for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. When someone crosses our borders, which are often also legally protected borders, feelings arise in us, which show the tortfeasor that we were hurt by his actions or behavior, and we want him to be penalized. We want to achieve a change in his behavior with the expressed anger. The more unacceptable the offense is to the society, the more likely it is that we will feel contempt or hatred for the tortfeasor. Life imprisonment and death penalty are the projections of contempt and hatred. In both cases the idea of the tortfeasor is dehumanized because he is perceived as not sufficiently worthy. In the case of criminal-law sanctions there is always the question whether to try to reeducate or just to penalize the tortfeasor.