Criminal law and social security law embody two fundamentally different functions of the state, yet the consequences of a criminal conviction are increasingly being situated precisely within the field of social security law. This is an extreme form of a broader trend under which entitlement to social security rights is made conditional upon compliance with behavioural requirements. This master's thesis addresses two types of situation: the absence of a criminal record as a condition for acquiring a right, and a conviction as a ground for its withdrawal or restriction. The most recent example of such a measure in the Slovenian legal order is a 2025 provision under which a final conviction for a criminal offence constitutes an independent ground for paying financial social assistance in kind.
This thesis seeks an answer to its central research question – whether, and under what conditions, such restriction is permissible and warranted – from four perspectives. From the perspective of political philosophy, arguments in favour of these measures can be constructed within most of the prevailing approaches, yet for the most part they do not hold up under those approaches' own criteria. The social security law analysis shows that these measures encroach upon the constitutionally protected core of the right to social security and must therefore be assessed under the strict proportionality test, which, in the light of their aim of special prevention, they are unlikely to pass. From a criminal law perspective, the measures correspond to the definition of the legal consequences of a conviction, and the safeguards attached to that institute should therefore apply to them. The legislation in force, however, as a rule fails to satisfy those safeguards. Criminological findings do not confirm the expected deterrent effect, while at the same time showing that the social security system in itself operates as a factor in reducing crime.
|
