Lozin arrested a moron

The folks over at Bonacci are absolutely fuming because Judge Slavko Lozin decided to throw their client—who is clearly struggling with some severe mental health issues—behind bars for a month. Apparently, his public indecency and the supposed risk of him "doing it again" was enough to warrant detention.

Full story here:

It really makes you wonder why we're footing the tax bill just to keep people like that on the payroll...

It’s highly probable that DSV will issue a reprimand to this individual as well, likely in a futile attempt at corrective action 👎

Let's be real here. Our legal system, just like any other country's, exists to protect its citizens while keeping things stable enough so the government isn't stuck footing massive bills for failing to act (like, if people kept jumping into a volcano every year, the state would have every right to build a giant fence around it, wouldn't they?).

When it comes to stuff like this, I honestly don't see why people with intellectual disabilities should get a pass on these kinds of measures. It's in everyone's best interest—the state's and the public's—to neutralize the threat so the crime doesn't happen again. And the easiest way to do that? Jail or detention. There are basically two ways this plays out:

a) A "normal" person commits public indecency
-> in this case, they're held accountable and get sentence x
b) A person with an intellectual disability commits public indecency
-> this is where people start arguing. You could go either way:
1) Reduce the sentence by treating their condition as a mitigating factor. That seems to be what 99% of people argue for... I haven't checked the stats, just guessing.
2) Treat the condition as an aggravating factor, because if they can't grasp the consequences, there's a higher chance they'll do it again compared to a typical person. That alone should justify a harsher penalty, maybe even double. That's my take.

By that same logic, if someone with an intellectual disability tried to kill someone, I’d actually advocate for a sentence twice as long as a typical person's. Purely because the statistical probability of recidivism is higher... and it's the state's job to protect its people.

Curious to hear your thoughts on this perspective.

Arthur Barnes said:When it comes to measures like this, I truly don't see why people who are incompetent should be exempt from such treatment.

To explain this simply, it contradicts all fundamental principles of criminal law. I will attempt to summarize it concisely, though it is not a simple task. 🙂
In short, for an act to constitute a crime under the US Penal Code, four specific conditions must be met:

1. ACT – For a crime to exist, there must first be an act, defined as a voluntary human action. Therefore, any effects caused by natural forces or animals are excluded from this concept. Human activities or states of being are also excluded; mere thoughts, beliefs, character, or lifestyle do not qualify. Physical movements that occur outside of a person's control are not considered acts.

2. An act that matches the legal description fulfills the ESSENCE OF THE CRIME. This term refers to the total set of characteristics that define a specific offense. The essence contains everything typical of a particular crime.

3. For behavior to be considered a crime, it is not enough to merely fulfill the essence of the crime; the act must also be UNLAWFUL.

4. Unlawfulness alone is insufficient for a crime to exist; one must also establish guilt principle

Guilt is our most critical factor. Consider this:
guilt = the subjective relationship of the perpetrator to their act, which allows for the issuance of
blame.

The guilt principle = NULLA POENA SINE CULPA (no punishment without guilt).

Under Section 4 of the US Model Penal Code: "No one can be punished, nor can other criminal sanctions be applied to them, unless they are guilty of the committed act."
The guilt principle combined with the principle of legality forms the foundation of modern criminal law.

THE NORMATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF GUILT IN MODERN US LAW:
Section 39 of the US Penal Code states: "A person is guilty of an offense if, at the time
of the act, they were ubrojiv, acting with
INTENT or NEGLIGENCE when the law prescribes
punishment for that specific form of guilt, and they were AWARE
or were DUTY-BOUND and ABLE TO BE AWARE that their
act was PROHIBITED."

Three elements of guilt must be satisfied:
1. UBROJIVOST
2. INTENT or NEGLIGENCE
3. AWARENESS OF UNLAWFULNESS or THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH AWARENESS

In this context, ubrojivost is our primary concern.

Section 40 – An individual is neubrojiv if, during the commission of the legal elements of a crime, they were unable to understand the meaning of their actions or could not control their own will due to mental illness, temporary mental impairment, insufficient mental development, or another severe mental disorder.
The legal consequence of being neubrojiv is that no criminal sanction can be applied to the perpetrator.
However, criminal proceedings are still initiated against a neubrojiv person, as neubrojivness can only be established through a judicial ruling. Following the verdict, if the individual poses a direct threat to their own life or the safety of others, provisions regarding involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility will be applied.

To summarize: A person who is neubrojiv lacks guilt; without guilt, there is no guilt, and therefore, no crime.

Arthur Barnes said:-> This is where perspectives start to diverge. There are basically two ways to look at this:
1) You mitigate the sentence by treating their cognitive disability as a mitigating factor. I think about 99% of people probably lean this way (I haven't run the numbers, I'm just guessing).
2) You treat the disability as an aggravating factor because if someone lacks mental capacity, there's a statistically higher chance they'll repeat the offense compared to a neurotypical person. Therefore, you'd hand down a harsher sentence—say, double—than you would to a "normal" person. That is my stance.

By that same logic, if a person with such a disability attempted murder, I would argue for twice the sentence of a standard offender, simply because the statistical probability of recidivism is higher, and it is the government's primary duty to protect its citizens.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this viewpoint.

Everything you just laid out is legally impossible under the Criminal Code because individuals who are neubrojiv cannot be held liable; a court can only rule that they committed an unlawful act and mandate a six-month commitment to a facility.
THERE ARE NO PUNISHMENTS! Only treatment.

Brandon Price3 said:Let me break this down simply... it goes against everything in criminal law. I'll try to be brief, though it's not easy... 🙂
Basically, for someone to have actually committed a crime under the Penal Code, four conditions must be met:

1. ACTION – To have a crime, there first has to be an action, which is a voluntary act by a person. So, natural forces or animal behavior are totally out. Just thoughts, beliefs, or even just someone's general lifestyle don't count as an "action." And if physical movements happen completely outside of a person's control? Not an action.

2. The action must match the legal definition to fulfill the ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME. This means the specific set of characteristics that define a certain offense.

3. It’s not enough just to meet those elements; the behavior also has to be UNLAWFUL.

4. And even then, you still need GUILT

For us, guilt is the most important part. Look at it this way:
guilt = the subjective connection between the person and the act, which allows us to
hold them accountable...

The presumption of innocence principle = NULLA POENA SINE CULPA (no punishment without guilt)

Section 4 of the Penal Code states: "No one can be punished, nor can any other criminal sanction be applied to them, unless they are guilty of the act committed."
The presumption of innocence combined with the principle of legality forms the foundation of modern criminal law.

THE NORMATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF GUILT IN NEW U.S. LEGISLATION:
Section 39 of the Penal Code: "A person is guilty of a crime if, at the time of the act, they were
COUNTABLE, acting with
INTENT or NEGLIGENCE as prescribed by law for that specific type of guilt, and they were AWARE
or SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE that their
act was PROHIBITED."

Three requirements for guilt must be satisfied:
1. COUNTABILITY
2. INTENT or NEGLIGENCE
3. AWARENESS OF UNLAWFULNESS OR THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT AWARENESS

In our case, countability is the big issue here.

Section 40 – An uncountable person is someone who, at the moment they committed the acts defining the crime, couldn't grasp what they were doing or couldn't control their own will due to mental illness, temporary mental impairment, insufficient mental development, or some other serious mental disorder.
The legal consequence of being uncountable is that no criminal sanction can be applied to them.
However, criminal proceedings are still initiated against an uncountable person because their status can only be determined by a court verdict. After the verdict, if that person poses a direct threat to their own life or the safety of others, provisions regarding involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility will apply.

So, to sum it up: Uncountable person = no guilt, no guilt, no crime.

Thanks, this top-down style of explaining things is great! So, the judge didn't follow the Penal Code correctly, and I see why everyone is freaking out. But, can you comment on what I said (which would imply changing the Constitution/Penal Code/etc.) regarding the likelihood of the crime happening again?

I get the whole thing about guilt and all, but isn't the state's goal to reduce offenses and protect its citizens in a "socially acceptable" way? I realize what I'm suggesting might not be considered socially acceptable, since most people think it's unfair to punish someone with a severe mental disability. But from the state's perspective, it's not a bad idea... and it could benefit the individual living in society too.

If someone with severe cognitive impairments starts firing a handgun around, and then gets let go because they lack the presumption of innocence... and then they do it again? And again? If you have 1,000 people like that, where does that leave us? These individuals become a threat to both the country and every single citizen. They need to be locked up. The statistical probability of them reoffending is just higher than it is for a neurotypical person. And look, this isn't some eugenicist nonsense... it's just math. The probability is higher because a person with those impairments is out on the street with the opportunity to strike again, whereas a "normal" person is behind bars and the probability drops to zero%...

goldengull3 said:The folks over at 'Bonači' are absolutely livid because Judge Slavko Lozin decided to throw a client of theirs—someone with severe mental health struggles—into pretrial detention for a month just for being naked in public and supposedly posing a risk of 'repeating the offense.'

Full story here:

It honestly makes my blood boil when I think about how we pay our taxes just to fund the salaries of people making these kinds of calls...

When dealing with uncountable issues involving mental capacity, mandatory detention is supposed to be triggered if there's a flight risk or a chance they'll strike again, but even then, the individual should be sent to a psychiatric facility following a formal expert evaluation.
But you don't just toss them into a standard jail cell.

I didn't see any evidence in the report that the judge actually followed those protocols.

Arthur Barnes said:That being said, can you address my point regarding the likelihood of the criminal element recurring—bearing in mind that such a change would necessitate amending the Constitution, the Penal Code, and various other legal frameworks?

Well, when it comes to the distinction between countable and uncountable quantities, experts are still debating the issue today. Dozens of books and academic papers have been written on the subject, and as a student, I certainly don't consider myself qualified enough to intervene in such matters.🙂
To put it simply, the presumption of innocence in criminal law functions as an absolute dogma; it is not something one touches.

Arthur Barnes said:If a person with a cognitive disability goes around firing a pistol, and then is released because they aren't held culpable, only to repeat the act a thousand times over, where does that leave us?

But that is precisely the point. Because the individual isn't held legally culpable, they won't end up in prison, but they will be committed to a psychiatric hospital. They aren't simply set free. It is somewhat difficult for me to explain this clearly.
😬

My only regret is watching Lozin pretend he’s significantly more intelligent than he actually is. Honestly—he’d be much better suited working for J. Bonaći.

It was quite something watching Tonči Bonaći on the afternoon news during the midday briefing. He actually suggested that Lozin would throw both himself and that poor kid lost somewhere near Topeka under the bus just to cause a stir. What a character. Honestly, I can't believe him.

Charles Fox10 said:It was quite something to hear Tonči Bonaći on the afternoon news program today suggesting that Lozin should just throw both himself and that poor little kid lost somewhere near Požega into jail just to stir up trouble. What a character; you honestly can't believe it.

To be precise, the child is about three and a half, and the individual he had detained is at the level of a four-year-old...

What’s even more intriguing, however, is how a three-judge panel at the Split court managed to rule that the detention was justified. 😕

Charles Fox10 said:It was quite the show this afternoon—Tonči Bonaći sitting there during the midday news cycle, basically claiming that Lozin is just trying to throw that poor kid lost somewhere near Phoenix under the bus just to stir up trouble. Honestly, the guy is unbelievable.

As if Tonči Bonaći is any better than Lozin... if anything, you rarely see a despot, sociopath, or tyrant quite like him even in this part of the country. 😠

Lozin is a judge who serves as a perfect, if unfortunate, mirror for the entire Split municipal court, its president, and the broader American judicial system as a whole. He’s a disgrace—not just to his profession or the state that appointed him, but to everyone who keeps him in that seat, to his fellow citizens, and frankly, to humanity itself.

What’s the catch here? Everyone seems to be against Lozin, yet he’s still acting like he owns the place.
Is there actually any way to hold these judges accountable? Or is he just untouchable by design?
It reminds me of that old saying: you aren't Pharaoh. 🙏

The FBI could probably step in and settle this matter once and for all.

I doubt the FBI will pull him off the case.

But honestly, only God knows what actually went down here.
Forget the reporters—they’re just clueless hacks pretending they know everything.
I highly doubt a federal judge would make such a rookie mistake—these guys handle cases like this all day long.
Plus, under the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 102 covers the risk of recidivism—so he gets detained, the file goes to the District Court for an evaluation, the defendant is sent to a hospital, and then the mental health laws kick in.

What’s the big deal? Where else are you supposed to put a repeat offender if there's a real risk they'll run or strike again?

lara35zg said:but only God knows what actually went down.
Don't bother with the reporters; they're nothing more than self-proclaimed experts who don't know a thing.

I am not attempting to defend the media, as I am well aware of the nonsense they publish, but the court reports in the New York Times are supposedly authored by individuals with actual law degrees.

rustyhawk3 said:I doubt the DOJ will dissolve him.

But God knows what actually went down here.
Don't bother asking journalists—they're just all-knowing amateurs.
I highly doubt a District Court judge would pull such a blunder; they handle this kind of stuff daily.
Plus, under Section 102, if there's a risk of recidivism, the FBI detains them, the file goes to Amtrak for transfer to the District Court for evaluation, then the detainee is sent to a hospital under the mental health statutes.

So what's the big deal? Where else are you supposed to put a repeat offender if there's a genuine flight risk?

You think a District Court judge wouldn't make a mistake like that?! Clearly, you haven't been paying enough attention to John Doe's "career." Honestly, given his track record, he should probably be banned from entering a courtroom for the next 150 years.