The Insanity Defense: Effects of Abolition Unsupported by a Moral Consensus

1984 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-500
Author(s):  
Lynnette S. Cobun
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Insanity Defense ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Face ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

AbstractThe insanity defense reflects the moral judgment that some criminal defendants do not deserve criminal sanctions because of mental incapacity. This Note examines the alternative formulations, such as guilty but mentally ill and diminished responsibility, that some states have enacted in the face of growing controversy over the insanity defense. It observes that the alternatives, if used in lieu of the insanity defense, distort the criminal law and do not comport with the legal doctrine of responsibility, which eschews punishing mentally ill defendants. The Note concludes that the insanity defense should not be abolished unless the moral consensus changes regarding the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants.

scholarly journals Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as Penalizing Criteria of Hate Speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-108
Author(s):  
Filip Mateusz Ciepły
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
European Law ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
And Gender

The article contains arguments raised in Polish discussion on the problem of sexual orientation and gender identity as penalizing criteria of hate speech. The Author points out regulations of Polish criminal law providing conditions of criminal responsibility for hate speech and binding criteria of the penalization, draft amendments in this area presented in recent years, as well as Polish legal doctrine or Supreme Court reviews referred to the issue. The background of the analyzes are provisions of international and European law as well as selected European states.

scholarly journals The Interrelation between Sovereign Immunities and Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (16) ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
George Chakhvadze
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The paper is an opinion article which analyses the essence of the principle of individual criminal responsibility in international criminal law and its key elements. The main focus of this paper is to analyze key moments of the development of the principle of individual criminal responsibility in relation to sovereign immunities. It has been shown that the development of legal doctrine and especially judicial practice greatly contributed to the balance between state sovereignty or state interests and the right of individual criminal accountability. The abolition of sovereign immunities before international courts and tribunals is the salient example of this development. Furthermore, the paper argues that when considering the effect of the principle of individual criminal responsibility and its relation to sovereign immunities, we should make conceptual distinction between personal and functional immunities. With this regard, the analysis of judicial practice clearly indicates that while personal immunity retains their force even before national courts acting on universal jurisdiction, the effect of functional immunities are somewhat restricted: functional immunities lose their power before national courts acting on universal jurisdiction. At the same time, states can abstain from using this right. Thus, the authors argue that despite recent advancements in theory and practice, the application of universal jurisdiction over international crimes still remains one of the main challenges. Šajā rakstā ir analizēta individuālās kriminālatbildības principa būtība starptautiskajās krimināltiesībās un tā galvenie elementi. Galvenā uzmanība ir pievērsta individuālās kriminālatbildības principa attīstības galvenajiem momentiem saistībā ar valsts imunitāti. Juridiskās doktrīnas un, it īpaši, tiesu prakses attīstība lielā mērā ir sekmējušas līdzsvaru starp valsts suverenitāti vai valsts interesēm un individuālās kriminālatbildības tiesībām. Turklāt rakstā tiek apgalvots, ka, apsverot individuālās kriminālatbildības principa ietekmi un tā saistību ar valsts imunitati, mums būtu konceptuāli jānošķir personiskā un funkcionālā imunitāte. Šajā sakarā tiesu prakses analīze skaidri norāda, ka, kaut arī personiskā imunitāte saglabā spēku pat valstu tiesās, kuras rīkojas saskaņā ar vispārējo jurisdikciju, funkcionālās imunitātes ietekme ir nedaudz ierobežota: funkcionālā imunitāte zaudē spēku nacionālajās tiesās, kas darbojas vispārējā jurisdikcijā. Tajā pašā laikā valstis faktiski var atturēties no šo tiesību izmantošanas. Noslēgumā autori apgalvo, ka, neskatoties uz jaunākajiem sasniegumiem teorijā un praksē, universālās jurisdikcijas piemērošana starptautiskajiem noziegumiem joprojām ir viens no galvenajiem izaicinājumiem.

scholarly journals KEBIJAKAN FORMULASI TERKAIT KONSEPSI RECHTERLIJKE PARDON (PERMAAFAN HAKIM) DALAM PEMBAHARUAN HUKUM PIDANA DI INDONESIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Aska Yosuki ◽  
Dian Andriawan Daeng Tawang
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Guilty Verdict ◽  
Criminal Sanctions

The effort of reforming criminal law in Indonesia, particularly the regulations, has been conducted since 1963, proven by the formulation of Penal Code Bill, however, until now, the Penal Code Bill has not been passed. One of the ideas in the Penal Code Bill is the concept of Rechterlijk Pardon. This concept is crystallized because of the current criminal law is too rigid and lack of humanity sense in applying to minor cases.This research aims to describe the concept of Rechterlijk Pardon and the basis of the concept in the Penal Code Bill in Indonesia. The result of the research is that the concept of Rechterlijk Pardon desires that in imposing criminal sanctions, the judges shall not only consider the criminal act and criminal responsibility, but also the objectives and guidelines of imposing criminal sanctions. The objectives and guidelines have been explicitly regulated in Article 55 and 56 of Penal Code Bill. Whenever the judges believe that imposing criminal sanctions is not consistent with its purpose and guidelines, the judges is possible to give pardon. The essence of this concept is that when the prosecutor successfully proves its indictment and the perpetrator was given pardon by the judges, there will be no criminal sanctions that will be imposed on the perpetrator. The form of the verdict is a guilty verdict without punishment. The basis of this concept are the philosophical, sociological, juridical, and teoritical basis.

scholarly journals The Court for Crown Cases Reserved, 1848–1908

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 259-288
Author(s):  
Phil Handler
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
Old Bailey ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Common ◽  
Convicted Felons

Convicted felons at the Old Bailey and on assize in nineteenth-century England had no right of appeal. They had either to submit to their fate or, if they had the means, petition the Crown for a pardon. The legal avenues for redress were limited. A writ of error would lie to a superior court for legal errors that appeared on the face of the record but by the nineteenth century this was seldom used. More significantly, it was open for the trial judge to reserve questions of law for the informal and private consideration of all the common law judges. In their illuminating studies of this practice in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, James Oldham and Randall McGowen elucidate the ways in which the judiciary used reserved cases to develop legal doctrine and to shape the operation of criminal justice. The trend toward increased formalization of procedure that they identify, culminated in 1848, when Parliament created the Court for Crown Cases Reserved (CCCR). The new court adopted the existing method of reserving cases, but was a court of record that sat and gave judgment in public. It became the highest judicial forum for the determination of questions of criminal law until 1908, when it was superseded by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

scholarly journals Basic Characteristics of the Commercial Criminal Law of the Republic of Srpska / Osnovne karakteristike privredno kaznenog prava Republike Srpske

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Драган Јовашевић
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Legal Entities

Considering the fact that in the modern world that knows no borders between countries and even continents, legal entities commit serious criminal offenses in the field of commercial, financial, computer, environmental, and similar operations. At the end of the 20th century, a lot of countries introduced a system of criminal responsibility and punishability of legal entities. Since the legal entity has no consciousness or will, i.e. is unable to take physical movements that would cause the consequence of a crime, specific rules on responsibility and application of criminal sanctions have been prescribed for this type of perpetrators. In this way, a new branch of criminal law was constituted - commercial criminal law. This paper deals precisely with the basic characteristics of commercial criminal law.

scholarly journals Rethinking Criminal Responsibility for Poor Offenders: Choice, Monstrosity, and the Logic of Practice

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 771-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Eve Sylvestre
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Power Differential ◽  
Economic Disparities ◽  
Essential Components

In theory and in discourse, Canadian criminal law insists on the importance of free will, choice, and difference in order to hold someone criminally responsible and to legitimize punishment. Yet legal doctrine is constructed and applied in a very technical and descriptive manner that usually casts aside practical considerations, proceeds on utilitarian grounds, and simplifies what it means to be free, rational, and different. Recent proposals to strengthen or to eliminate the retributive model (e.g., to include in the analysis considerations such as socio-economic disparities and power differential or to definitely shift the discourse toward utilitarian considerations) still rely on assumptions about agency, liberty, and equality that are grounded in contested sociological evidence. As a result, their capacity to promote concrete reform is limited. In this paper, the author draws from the works of Bourdieu and other praxis theorists and argues that their research could shed new light on our understanding of choice and difference—two essential components in the assessment of responsibility. The author concludes by showing what criminal law theory could look like, especially in the case of poor offenders, if reformers were to consider such sociological evidence.

scholarly journals PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA KURATOR BERDASARKAN PRINSIP INDEPENDENSI MENURUT HUKUM KEPAILITAN

Yuridika ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 441
Author(s):  
Sriti Hesti Astiti
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Willingness To Accept ◽  
Bankruptcy Law ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Independence Principle ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Postponement ◽  
Debt Obligation

This article aimed to criticize the juridical basis of scope of crime mentioned on Law Number 37 of 2004, focuses on criminal responsibility of a curator based on independence principle of bankruptcy law. Essentially, bankruptcy is a part of civil law. However, some bankruptcy cases eventually evolve into criminal matters when a bankruptcy curator who is responsible in handling and administering bankruptcy case is positioned as defendant charged for conducting criminal acts. As stated on Article 234 Verse 2 of Law Number 37 of 2004, a curator who is proven not independent during bankruptcy court may be charged with criminal law. Criminal sanctions for non-independent curators aimed at preventing the curator from committing criminal acts in the course of the execution of the duty and maintenance tasks. Here, the role of criminal law is as a guardian of the norms that exist in the Law on Bankruptcy related to the duties and responsibilities of the curator. In order for a curator or committee before declaring his willingness to accept the duties and responsibilities of the consequences of the bankruptcy verdict or the postponement of the debt obligation obligation (PKPU) really ensure that he will not commit a disgraceful act of.

scholarly journals CORPORATE LIABILITY FORMULATION POLICY ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 101 OF LAW NUMBER 31 OF 2004 JUNCTO LAW NUMBER 45 OF 2009 CONCERNING FISHERIES IN TERM OF CRIMINAL LEGAL REFORM IN INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-133
Author(s):  
Vivi Tri Kasih ◽  
Antory Royan Adyan ◽  
Herlambang Herlambang
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Management Structure ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Illegal Fishing ◽  
Fisheries Law ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
The Brain

The corporation is the brain and source of funds for all illegal fishing activities and other crimes that occur along the chain of fishing business activities. According to Law Number 31 of 2004 in conjunction with Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries, Article 101 states that: "In the case of a criminal acts as referred to in Article 84 paragraph (1), Article 85, Article 86, Article 87, Article 88, Article 89, Article 90, Article 91, Article 92, Article 93, Article 94, Article 95, and Article 96, the acts are committed by corporations; prosecution and criminal sanctions are imposed on their management and the fine is added by 1/3 (one third) of the sentence imposed." It is necessary to renew the Fisheries Law in order to provide an overview in determining the Corporate Liability Formulation Policy according to Article 101 of Law Number 31 of 2004 in conjunction with Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries in the context of Criminal Law Reform in Indonesia. The type of this research was normative by using primary, secondary and tertiary sources of legal materials. From the results of research and discussion, it was revealed that Corporate Liability according to Article 101 of Law Number 31 of 2004 in conjunction with Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries in Indonesia currently does not explain things about the meaning of the word "management", which parties in the management structure of a corporation that can be held accountable, or to what extent the authority possessed by parties in the management structure of a corporation can be subject to criminal responsibility. Therefore, the Corporate Liability Formulation Policy according to Article 101 of Law Number 31 of 2004 in conjunction with Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries in the context of Criminal Law Reform in the future should be changed, this is important considering the formulation stage is the most strategic stage in the efforts to prevent and to control crime by including / expanding criminal liability, not only for the management but also for the corporation and its management.

KEBIJAKAN KRIMINALISASI DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG DI BIDANG POLITIK

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1592
Author(s):  
Hanafi Amrani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Criminal Sanction ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Law

AbstrakArtikel ini membahas dua permasalahan pokok: pertama, kriteria yang digunakan oleh pembentuk undang-undang di bidang politik dalam menetapkan suatu perbuatan sebagai perbuatan pidana (kriminalisasi); dan kedua, fungsi sanksi pidana dalam undang-undang di bidang politik. Terkait dengan kriminalisasi, undang-undang di bidang politik yang termasuk ke dalam hukum administrasi, maka pertimbangan dari pembuat undang-undang tentu saja tidak sekedar kriminalisasi sebagaimana diatur dalam ketentuan hukum pidana dalam arti sebenarnya. Hal tersebut disebabkan adanya pertimbangan-pertimbangan tertentu. Pertama, perbuatan yang dilarang dalam hukum pidana administrasi lebih berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala prohibita, sedangkan dalam ketentuan hukum pidana yang sesungguhnya berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala in se. Kedua, sebagai konsekuensi dari adanya penggolongan dua kategori kejahatan tersebut, maka pertimbangan yang dijadikan acuan juga akan berbeda. Untuk yang pertama (mala prohibita), sanksi pidana itu dibutuhkan untuk menjamin ditegakkannya hukum administrasi tersebut. Dalam hal ini sanksi pidana berfungsi sebagai pengendali dan pengontrol tingkah laku individu untuk mencapai suatu keadaan yang diinginkan. Sedangkan untuk yang kedua (mala in se), fungsi hukum pidana dan sanksi pidana lebih berorientasi pada melindungi dan mempertahankan nilai-nilai moral yang tertanam di masyarakat tempat di mana hukum itu diberlakukan atau ditegakkan. Kata Kunci: Kebijakan, Kriminalisasi, Undang-Undang PolitikThis article discusses two main problems: firstly, the criteria used by the legislators in the field of politics in determining an act as a criminal act (criminalization); secondly, the function of criminal sanctions in legislation in the field of politics. Associated with criminalization, legislation in the field of politics that is included in administrative law, the consideration of the legislators of course not just criminalization as stipulated in the provisions of criminal law in the true sense. This is due to certain considerations. Firstly, the act which is forbidden in the administration of criminal law is more oriented to act is malum prohibitum offences, whereas in actual criminal law provisions in the act are mala in se offences. Secondly, as a consequence of the existence of two categories of classification of the crime, then consideration will also vary as a reference. For the first (mala prohibita), criminal sanctions are needed to ensure the enforcement of the administrative law. In this case the criminal sanction serves as controller and controlling the behavior of individuals to achieve a desired state. As for the second (mala in se), the function of criminal law and criminal sanctions is more oriented to protect and maintain the moral values that are embedded in a society where the law was enacted or enforced.

EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUNISHMENTAS A FROM OF CRIMINAL PROTECTION

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raul' Dzhindzholiya ◽  
Ruslan Zhirov ◽  
Azamat Dzuev
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Protection

This article is devoted to the study of the essence and content of institutions of exemption from criminal responsibility and punishment. It is concluded that exemption from criminal responsibility and punishment as two types of criminal protection serve to implement the principles of humanism and justice in criminal law; ensure that the convict is corrected without criminal coercion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document