The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 1 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Legal characteristics of vigilantism
Open accessAbstract
This paper analyzes the totality of legal features of the phenomenon of vigilantism. Within the first chapter, the concept and features of this phenomenon are considered. The second chapter is dedicated to the specialized analysis of legal characteristics of vigilantism. Within the third chapter, the author shows some of the most relevant opinions regarding aforementioned topic which can be found in academic literature. The final, fourth part of this paper aims at a comprehensive analysis of the legal permissibility of vigilant actions. It was noticed that the actions of the vigilantes can take on the features of numerous criminal offences, very diverse in terms of the nature of the legally protected goods. Among other things, it was concluded that there are no legally relevant arguments for the general legalization of vigilantism, although certain circumstances in specific cases could lead to the elimination of unlawfulness, or to the exclusion or reduction of responsibility of the perpetrator-vigilant. This mainly refers to institutes of actual misconduct, necessary defense and its overstepping, as well as to other factors concerning the perpetrator-vigilant, the behavior of the victim of the vigilant action, and the characteristic of a concrete vigilant situation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper analyzes the legal features of vigilantism, arguing that while there are no legally relevant grounds for its general legalization, specific circumstances in individual cases can eliminate unlawfulness or exclude/reduce a perpetrator-vigilant's responsibility. It situates vigilantism within Serbian criminal law, showing vigilante acts can match numerous, diverse criminal offences.
Key findings
- Vigilante actions can take on the features of numerous criminal offences, "very diverse in terms of the nature of the legally protected goods," including offences against life and limb, freedoms and rights of citizens, honour and reputation, and public order (e.g., murder Art. 113, grievous bodily harm Art. 121, stalking Art. 138a, violent behaviour Art. 344 of the Serbian Criminal Code).
- The paper concludes there are no legally relevant arguments for the general legalization of vigilantism, but certain circumstances in specific cases can eliminate unlawfulness or exclude/reduce the responsibility of the perpetrator-vigilant.
- This applies primarily to the institutes of actual mistake, necessary defence and its overstepping, and other factors concerning the perpetrator-vigilant, the victim's behaviour, and the concrete vigilant situation.
- The author proposes defining vigilantism as individual or collective action by citizens, organized or unorganized, aimed at preventing, suppressing or sanctioning primarily criminal (and other delinquent/deviant) acts in a local setting, where the actors lack legal authorization.
Methods
- Doctrinal legal analysis structured in four parts: the concept and features of vigilantism, its legal characteristics, pro et contra positions in the literature, and an assessment of legal permissibility.
- Analysis grounded in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia (Krivični zakonik, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 85/05 et seq.), with reference to comparative and theoretical literature.
- No empirical data or sample; the work is a theoretical/normative legal study.
Limitations
- The paper states no explicit limitations. It notes that further consideration of certain theoretical dilemmas (e.g., the law/justice paradox) exceeds the spatial and thematic scope of the work.
- Evident from the text: the analysis is confined to positive-law (primarily Serbian) criminal law and is purely doctrinal, with no empirical testing of the claims about vigilantism's prevalence or effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
35 Own interpretation · 1 Sources not found · 1 No basis given
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Najkarakterističniji u tom pogledu jeste fizički napad na pretpostavljenog učinioca krivičnog dela od strane pojedinca ili grupe vigilanata.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Iz pravne perspektive, dakle, opisana vrsta građanskog aktivizma ne može steći načelni status dopuštenosti.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“U takvim uslovima, vigilantna motivacija učinioca i njegovo delovanje u tom smislu umnogome mogu otežati utvrđivanje njegovog statusa žrtve koja je, zapravo, bila prinuđena da se brani od napada drugog lica.”
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“U pogledu umišljaja, čini se osnovanim primetiti da se, shodno prirodi aktivnosti koje vigilant sprovodi, u većini situacija mora govoriti o postojanju umišljaja, uz eventualno prisustvo određenih izuzetaka u slučaju neumišljajnog izvršenja krivičnog dela.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“U pogledu radnji koje obuhvataju isključivo nadzor nad susedstvom i obaveštavanje policije, bez samostalnog preduzimanja radnji u cilju sprečavanja ili sankcionisanja pretpostavljenih učinilaca krivičnog dela, one načelno predstavljaju pravno dopušten vid antikriminalnog građanskog aktivizma.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Polazeći od prirode instituta nužne odbrane, opravdano je konstatovati da će sudsko utvrđivanje uslova neophodnih za njeno postojanje direktno zavisiti od namere vigilanta i njegovog ponašanja neposredno pre nego što je do odbrane došlo.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uočeno je da radnje vigilanata mogu poprimiti obeležja brojnih krivičnih dela, veoma raznolikih u pogledu vrste pravom zaštićenog dobra.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kako je pokazano, za materiju prava neprihvatljiva je svaka argumentacija kojom se pokušava opravdati vigilantno postupanje ukoliko je ono motivisano pravednim, tj.etički ispravnim razlozima.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Načelno, ukoliko su ispunjeni propisani uslovi za njenu primenu, svakako je moguće da sud zaista i uvaži takvu argumentaciju.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Međutim, ovo pitanje, spram svojih opštih obeležja, ne pokazuje bitnije specifičnosti u odnosu na generalnu materiju uračunljivosti koja se tiče drugih učinilaca-nevigilanata.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ukoliko pak u ponašanju nadzirane osobe ne bi bilo opisanih elemenata protivpravnosti (primera radi, pretpostavljena opasnost, odnosno napad na vigilanta nisu stvarni), radilo bi se o putativnoj nužnoj odbrani, čime bi se problem ponovo sveo na domen stvarne zablude.”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“U pogledu učestalosti i tipičnosti manifestovanja, naročito se izdvajaju krivična dela protiv života i tela, dela protiv sloboda i prava čoveka i građanina i krivična dela protiv časti i ugleda.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kako se može primetiti, navedena krivična dela pripadaju različitim pozitivnopravnim kategorijama.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Radnja izvršenja krivičnih dela povezanih sa vršenjem vigilantizma sastoji se isključivo u činjenju i može se manifestovati u veoma raznolikim pojavnim oblicima.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Međutim, to planiranje se ne mora (a veoma često i ne može) odnositi na konkretnu vigilantnu situaciju, već samo na opšta obeležja i okolnosti izvršenja buduće, apstraktne i hipotetičke vigilantne radnje.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Takođe, primećuje se da nije jasno definisan, a često ni lako uočljiv odnos vigilantizma i čitavog niza (više ili manje) srodnih pojmova.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Budući da vigilantizam, shodno prikazanom većinskom stavu u literaturi, predstavlja protivpravno ponašanje, pitanje o njegovoj potencijalnoj pravnoj dopuštenosti može se, na prvi pogled, učiniti izlišnim.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pitanje saučesništva direktno se oslanja na modalitet vigilantizma o kome je reč u konkretnoj situaciji.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“S druge strane, uprkos pravne nedopuštenosti vigilantizma i svih ustanovljenih pravnih mehanizama koji se mogu primeniti u slučaju vršenja vigilantne radnje, treba prihvatiti kao realnost činjenicu da je konačna odluka o sprovođenju ili nesprovođenju pomenute radnje uvek na pojedincu -u tom pogledu se učinilac-vigilant ni po čemu ne razlikuje od ma kog drugog potencijalnog učinioca krivičnog dela.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Na osnovu sprovedene analize postojećih stavova u literaturi, nedvosmisleno se može uočiti nedovoljna određenost kako samog pojma vigilantizma tako i njegovih obeležja i sastavnih elemenata.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Naime, shodno određenju koje je vigilantnoj radnji pridato u prethodnom poglavlju, njoj po pravilu prethodi planiranje od strane budućih učinilaca-vigilanata.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Takođe, zahtevi funkcionisanja pravne države i poštovanje načela pravne sigurnosti su u koliziji sa svim pokušajima preispitivanja odnosa prava i pravičnosti u kontekstu vigilantizma, nezavisno od konkretne argumentacije koja se u pojedinačnim slučajevima ističe.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stoga pitanja postojanja nužne odbrane, kao i granice između nužne odbrane i njenog prekoračenja, takođe mogu predstavljati relevantne činioce u pojedinim slučajevima do kojih može doći u praksi.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Govoreći o pitanju prethodnog planiranja, ono je u slučaju vigilantnog delovanja, po logici stvari, veoma često prisutno.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To se, pre svega, odnosi na institute stvarne zablude, nužne odbrane i njenog prekoračenja, kao i na druge faktore koji se tiču učinioca-vigilanta, ponašanja žrtve vigilantne radnje, kao i odlika konkretne vigilantne situacije.”
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“U svakom slučaju, uprkos kategoričkom i doktrinarnom pravničkom stavu o pravnoj nedopuštenosti opisanog tipa vigilantnih radnji, treba primetiti da, pod određenim okolnostima, specifične okolnosti (koje se tiču učinioca-vigilanta, ponašanja žrtve vigilantne radnje, kao i konkretne vigilantne situacije) mogu dovesti do isključenja ili umanjenja odgovornosti učinioca.”
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Iskazano terminologijom prava, u pitanju je isključivo slobodna odluka pojedinca da li će svoje činjenje uskladiti sa pravnim normama, ili će svesno prekršiti neki od elemenata konkretne dispozicije i na taj način staviti u izgled mogućnost primene propisane pravne sankcije u odnosu na njega kao učinioca krivičnog dela.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Postoji nedostatak pravne naučne literature o vigilantizmu, a medijsko i popularno razmatranje vigilantizma znatno premašuje količinu naučnih tekstova o toj temi.
“Takođe, primećuje se da razmatranje vigilantizma u medijima, kao i u literaturi popularnog karaktera umnogome premašuje kvantitet naučnih tekstova posvećenih citiranoj problematici, pri čemu naročito nedostaje pravna naučna građa.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ . Pravna dimenzija vigilantizma
“teška telesna povreda (član 121.KZRS)”
§ . Pravna dimenzija vigilantizma
“uvreda (član 121.KZRS)”
Citations
Cites
The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment
Zimring, F. E. (2003) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195152364.001.0001 · Cited by 357
Johnston, L. (1996) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014083 · Cited by 357
"In our own hands": Lynching, justice, and the law in Bolivia
Goldstein, D. M. (2003) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1525/ae.2003.30.1.22 · Cited by 232
Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence
Rosenbaum, H. J., & Sederberg, P. C. (1974) · Comparative Politics · doi:10.2307/421337 · Cited by 177
Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American Violence and Vigilantism
Ely, J. W., & Brown, R. M. (1976) · Columbia Law Review · doi:10.2307/1121642 · Cited by 126
Vigilantism and the State in Modern Latin America: Essays on Extralegal Violence
Roldán, M., & Huggins, M. K. (1992) · Hispanic American Historical Review · doi:10.1215/00182168-72.4.613 · Cited by 106
Violence: The Enduring Problem
Alvarez, A., & Bachman, R. D. (2007) · Cited by 93
Little, C. B., & Sheffield, C. P. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095326 · Cited by 70
Vigilante homicides in contemporary Ghana
Adinkrah, M. (2005) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.06.008 · Cited by 60 · cited 2×
“, 1996, What is Vigilantism?, British Journal of Criminology, 36 (2), pp.”
The Role of Bystanders in Crime Control
Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1984) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01079.x · Cited by 57
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Ayyildiz, E., 1995, When Battered Woman’s Syndrome Does Not Go Far Enough: The Battered Woman as Vigilante, Journal of Gender and the Law, 4 (141).;
- Brandon, D. I. et al., 1984, Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society, Vanderbilt Law Review, 37.;
- Haas, N. E., 2010, Public Support for Vigilantism, doctoral thesis, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Leiden University.;
- Moore, J. D., 2009, Reasonable Provocation: Distinguishing the Vigilant from the Vigilante in Self-Defense Law, Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 78, issue 4.;
- Warren, I., Vigilantism, The Press and Signal Crimes 2006-2007, in: Segrave, M. (ed.), 2009, Australia & New Zealand Critical Criminology Conference 2009: Conference Proceedings, Melbourne.;
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The phenomenon of pro-environmental crime: Criminal law and criminological aspects
Matković, A., & Lečić, B. (2025) · Socioloski pregled · doi:10.5937/socpreg59-57911
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Matković, A.
- Corresponding author
- Matković, Aleksandar
- ORCID
- Matković, Aleksandar
- Venue
- Pravni zapisi
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 96-110
- ISSN
- 2217-2815 (ISSN-L)
- 2406-1387
- OpenAlex
- W2884278422
- Semantic Scholar
- e7a78cce9dfdbcf41d6a41388609714c0c54a454
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Pravni zapisi (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal principles and applications
- Keywords
- vigilantism, necessary defense, exceeding the limits of self-defense, victim behavior, crime
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
