Culture of Polis, Year XVIII (2021), Issue 44, pp. 111–122
ISSN 1820-4589

Belgrade Bar Association, Belgrade, Serbia

UDC: 343.8

Review work
Received: 2021-01-11
Approved: 2021-02-03
Online: 2021-03-08


The process of sentencing means individualization and customization types and extent of sentencing the crime and its perpetrator. In that way, the purpose of criminal law, which consists in the last defense of the society from crime, is best realized. The whole process of keeping the pretrial and criminal proceedings has the ultimate goal of sentencing the defendant. Furthermore, the procedure of execution of the sentence is based on its previous measurement and adjustment of the personality of the convicted person. Hence, the case law abounds with examples in which an inadequately measured sentence has called into question the criminal procedure itself and the defensive function of criminal law in the society. The issue of sentencing in modern criminal law has been resolved in accordance with modern trends in the field of punishing perpetrators of criminal offenses. Therefore, we can distinguish between regular sentencing, which means that the perpetrator goes to court for one criminal offense. However, in court practice, it is not uncommon for the perpetrator to go to court due to multiple predicate offenses made in ideal or real time. In this case, special sentencing rules apply, which take into account the fact that several criminal offenses are tried at the same time. In criminal doctrine, there are several modalities of sentencing for predicate offenses. Their number varied in different time intervals. Our legislator has incorporated into its norms three ways of sentencing for predicate offenses. These are the systems: absorptions, asperations, and cumulations. In this paper, we will point out the advantages, disadvantages and applicability of each of these systems that sentencing predicate offenses.
sentencing, absorption, asperation, cumulation, sentencing, judgment


  1. Ђурић, Александар. 2005. „Мотив у кривичном праву.“ Докторска дисертација. Универзитет у Нишу: Правни факултет.
  2. Јовашевић, Драган. 2002. Лексикон кривичног права. Београд: Службени лист СРЈ.
  3. Јоксић, Иван. 2019. Кривично право-општи део. Нови Сад: Правни факултет за привреду и и правосуђе.
  4. Лазаревић, Љубиша. 2011. Коментар Кривичног законика. Београд: Правни факултет Универзитета Унион.
  5. Миладиновић Стефановић, Душица. 2019. „Математизовање одмеравања казне: ефикасан метод за уједначавање судске казнене политике или неуспели експеримент?.“ Зборник радова Правног факултета у Нишу LVIII (85): 205-224.
  6. Николић, Златко и Јоксић Иван. 2011. Малолетничка делинквенција (социјалнопсихолошки и кривичноправни аспекти). Београд: Институт за криминолошка и социолошка истраживања.
  7. Перић, Обрад. 2007. Коментар Закона о малолетним учиниоцима кривичних дела и кривичноправној заштити малолетних лица. Београд: Службени гласник.
  8. Кривични законик [КЗС], „Службени гласник“, бр. 85/2005, 88/2005 – испр., 107/2005 – испр., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016 и 35/2019.
  9. Закон о малолетним учиниоцима кривичних дела и кривичноправној заштити малолетних лица [ЗОМ], „Службени гласник“, бр. 85/2005.
  10. Закон о одговорности правних лица за кривична дела [ЗОП], „Службени гласник“, бр. 97/2008.
  11. Blagojević, Borislav. 1957. Rimski građanski postupak i rimsko krivično pravo. Beograd: Naučna knjiga.
  12. Bačić, Franjo. 1998. Krivično pravo-opći dio. Zagreb: Informator.
  13. Babić, Miloš i Marković Ivanka. 2013. Krivično pravo-opšti dio. Banja Luka: Pravni fakultet.
  14. Stojanović, Zoran. 1991. Politika suzbijanja kriminaliteta. Novi Sad: Pravni fakultet.
  15. Stojanović, Zoran. 2008. Međunarodno krivično pravo. Beograd: Pravna knjiga.