What Proclaims the Increasing Punitiveness in Lithuania?

Abstract

The outcomes of criminal legislation and the indicators of criminal prosecution show an increasing punitiveness in Lithuania. On the 1st of May 2003, into force came the new Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Code of Execution of Penalties and allowed to balance the punishment practice, for example, over 5 years to reduce the number of prisoners (250 prisoners per 100 000 of population), although it was still several times higher than the European average. However, in the period of the so-called financial (economic) crisis, the situation has changed radically. The terms of imprisonment began to rise, and the restrictive practice of conditional release returned the number of prisoners in Lithuania (315 of the end of 2013) to the time of 2001–2002. Lithuania has overtaken Georgia, Latvia, Ukraine and has established itself in the 3rd place among all European countries after Russia and Belarus. During this period, the number of crimes in Lithuania remained unchanged, while the most serious crimes (homicide, serious bodily injury, rape, robbery) have been declining continuously. The intensified criminal prosecution for domestic violence has increased the total num­ber of convicted persons by about 20 percent, but it wasn’t an essential reason for the growth of the prison population.
The question-title of this article is rather rhetorical and expresses more the authors’ nuisance than offers the answer to this question-title. However, according to the au­thor’s and other European criminologists’ studies and insights, the culture of punish­ment primarily depends on the social, cultural, political, and economic contexts of the country with a long historical trail, as well as on the actual economic situation.
The increasing criminal punitiveness in the times of a financial (economic) crisis convincingly explains the scapegoat theory in which the main description of the attach­ment of blame by “strangers” is concerned with the lack of confidence among people and institutions in society.
Attempts to solve the problems of criminal behaviour by increasing criminal re­pression (punitiveness) shows the persistence of the old totalitarian tradition which is shaping the culture of punishment in Lithuania. Since 2011, 19 amendments to the Criminal Code have been adopted, and the majority of these changes were related with the tightening of criminal responsibility. Part of these changes have been associated with the EU law enforcement, but in most cases this has been done straightforwardly, without a wider debate and without taking into account the peculiarities of the national criminal justice. In addition, most of these changes were not related to the implementa­tion of the EU legislation. The article concludes that it is necessary to change the culture of punishment in Lithuania, but in order to do this, it is necessary to illustrate the in­dicators of punitiveness and to reflect the situation, to see the fundamental differences from the other EU countries, and the possible alternatives.