On April 12, 2024, the fourth international scientific-practical conference “Trends and Challenges in European and National Criminal Policy” organised by the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS LI), the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University, and the Law School of Mykolas Romeris University was held. At the event, along with Lithuanian and foreign researchers and practitioners, Dr. Mindaugas Lankauskas and Dr. Skirmantas Bikelis from LCSS LI also participated.
Mindaugas Lankauskas presented a topic “How Does Themis Weigh Drugs? Legal Framework for the Determination of Drug Quantities in Lithuania”. During his presentation, the researcher introduced criteria for determining the quantity of psychoactive substances and its impact on criminal liability.
“Why do the quantities of hashish and cannabis differ by up to 20 times according to our legislation?” - rhetorically asked Dr. Lankauskas, identifying problematic aspects of drug quantity determination. Finally, the researcher also presented his proposals on what should be done to ensure that the law regarding quantity does not abandon the principle of proportionality.
This topic was thoroughly examined in a recent article by Dr. Lankauskas titled “How does Themis Weigh Drugs? Peculiarities of the Legal Regulation of the Determination of Quantities of Some Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances in Lithuania” published in the scientific criminology journal “Criminological studies”, which is published by LCSS Law Institute in collaboration with the Lithuanian Criminologists’ Association and Vilnius University.
Skirmantas Bikelis presented a paper in English titled “Prohibition to Hold Public Office and Prohibition to Be Elected - Lithuanian v. German Approaches. Legal language and proportionality issue”. In his presentation, the researcher compared the regulation of Lithuania and Germany regarding an additional sanction - the prohibition to hold public office. At the end of his presentation, he identified linguistic aspects that could become reasons for failure when seeking to impose this additional punitive measure on the convicted individual.