Comparative Criminal Law

2006 ◽  
pp. 1286-1326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus D. Dubber
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Critical Distance ◽  
The Third ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The first section of this article describes criminal law's parochialism. The second section discusses the histories and functions of comparative criminal law. The third section discusses selected topics in comparative law, such as punishment theory, victims, jurisdiction, the principle of legality, an analysis of criminal liability, and general principles of criminal liability. The last section discusses comparative criminal law in context. The discussion notes that comparative criminal law is best seen as one way to gain critical distance from a given system of criminal law by placing it within a larger context.

Comparative Criminal Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 1275-1305
Author(s):  
Markus D. Dubber
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Critical Distance ◽  
The Third ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Criminal law occupies an odd position in the field of comparative jurisprudence. Historically speaking, one can occasionally read that comparative law as a serious academic discipline began as comparative criminal law, either in Germany or in France, or both. And yet, introductions to comparative law tend to assume that comparative law means comparative civil law first and foremost. The first section of this chapter describes criminal law’s parochialism. The second section discusses the histories and functions of comparative criminal law. The third section discusses selected topics in comparative law, such as punishment theory, victims, jurisdiction, the principle of legality, the an analysis of criminal liability, and general principles of criminal liability. The last section discusses comparative criminal law in context, arguing that comparative criminal law is best seen as a mode of critical analysis of law, that is, as one way to gain critical distance from a given legal system by placing it within a larger context.

scholarly journals Formulating Criminal Liabilities Regarding Online Prostitution

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 427
Author(s):  
Trio Angga Laksana ◽  
Y.A. Triana Ohoiwutun ◽  
Fanny Tanuwijaya
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Common Term ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Principle Of Legality

This study aims to obtain similarities and differences regarding legal formulation in online prostitution. Hitherto, prostitution has remained to exist in Indonesian society. In context, the existing perpetrators of prostitution do not peddle conventionally but also virtually, in which online prostitution that gradually increases is a common term that refers to this phenomenon. The current law enforcement against perpetrators of online prostitution performs as the consequence of the national law in which national laws have yet remained to accommodate in criminalizing perpetrators of online prostitution. The criminalization of perpetrators in online prostitution may contrast with the principle of legality so that national laws should accommodate perpetrators of online prostitution regarding their criminal liability. In particular, these national laws should address whether to prohibit the attitude that proliferates online prostitution so that perpetrators of online prostitution should be accountable for their crimes. Henceforth, this measure intends to avoid the overlap of the principle of legality in criminal law. Keywords: Online Prostitution, Criminal Liabilities, Principle of Legality.

Public Wrongs and Private Wrongs

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Wall
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Third ◽  
Concern For Others ◽  
Basic Features ◽  
Public Wrong ◽  
Private Wrongs

There are a set of wrongs that are normatively distinct as ‘criminal wrongs’, and yet, there is disagreement as to ‘the basic features of criminal liability’ that explain this normative distinctiveness. The only consensus has been that criminal wrongs are ‘public wrongs’. For some, they are public wrongs in the sense that they infringe the values and interests for which the community has a shared and mutual concern. For others, they are public wrongs in the sense that they are the wrongs that public officials are responsible for punishing. A third view is that they are public wrongs in the sense that there are procedural advantages of having public officials empowered to address the wrongdoing. I argue here that the first two views are analytically inseparable: the considerations that explain the wrongs that merit social prohibition are the same considerations that explain the censuring and punitive response of the criminal law. I also argue here that, contrary to the third view, the powers of public officials in criminal law procedures follow from, rather than explain, the concept of a crime being a public wrong. Procedural advantages can explain how criminal wrongs are public wrongs, but they cannot explain why criminal wrongs are public wrongs.

scholarly journals SADOMASOCHISTS UNSHACKLED?

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Leader-Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Social Utility ◽  
The South ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Social

This article provides a response to the article in this volume entitled ‘Is Society Still Shackled with the Chains of a 1993 England?: Consent, Sado-masochism and R v Brown’ by Jordan Moulds. It takes issue with the primary article’s claims that consensual infliction of pain and physical harm is now acceptable and may even possess some social value as recreation. It offers three reflections on the topic of criminal liability for consensual harms. The first has to do with the absence of principle in the South Australian legislative developments. The second casts doubt on the cogency of the primary article’s enquiries into the social utility or benefit of sadomasochism. The third draws attention to another peculiarity of South Australian criminal law, which arises because of the fact that the CLCA offences against the person do not include an offence of causing harm by negligence.

scholarly journals NULLUM CRIMEN SINE LEGE

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
LAURA-ROXANA POPOVICIU
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Professional Activity ◽  
Free Development ◽  
The Right ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Right Order

This article discusses the issue of one of the most important Latin expressions that establish at the level of general principle that no crime exists outside the law.The purpose of the criminal law being the defense against the offenses of the right order, ensuring this order implies a strict respect of the principle of legality.Part of the principle of legality, the legality of incrimination, was formulated among the first, by the Beccaria in Dei delitti e delle pene and proclaimed also in the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights (1789).Subsequently, the principle of legality of incrimination was passed in most criminal codes and even in some constitutions.The Romanian penal code emphasizes that the incriminations can only take place by law, not by other normative acts.In our law, crime is the sole basis of criminal liability.The second part of the principle of legality stipulates the legality of the punishments, so that, the crime being the only theme of the criminal liability, at the time of the commission the sanction must also intervene. Only when the sanction intervenes, it must be taken into account in particular that by sanctioning the offenders and the way in which the punishments are enforced some fundamental rights of the person are restricted, such as: freedom of movement, enshrined in all democratic constitutions, free development of the personality of the man and of his participation in the social and economic life, in the family life, the interruption of the professional activity and not lastly the affectation of his dignity. Therefore legality is a fundamental principle of criminal law: the criminalization can only take place through a law, and the sanction only if it is provided by law.

LEGAL CONTENT OF CATEGORY“PREPARATION FOR PERFORMANCE OF AN INTENTIONAL CRIME”

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
V. F. Lapshin ◽  
E. H. Nadiseva
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The implementation of criminal liability for an unfinished crime, interrupted at the stage of preparation, is not consistent with the basic criminal law requirements, since the act committed at the stage of preparation, clearly does not contain any signs of a crime or its composition. At the same time, the imposition of punishment is carried out in accordance with the sanction of the norms of the Special part of the criminal code, which indicates the existence of an act not actually committed by the convicted person. This allows us to raise questions about the legality and necessity of bringing a person to criminal responsibility for an act recognized as preparation for the Commission of an intentional crime. The analysis of provisions of the current criminal legislation, sources of scientific literature, and also materials of judicial practice on criminal cases about incrimination of preparatory actions, allowed to draw a conclusion according to which attraction of the person to responsibility for Commission of the act characterized as preparation for Commission of crime, contradicts the principle of legality and justice. In this regard, it is proposed to change the current criminal legislation, eliminating the rules on the preparation of the Institute of unfinished crime.

scholarly journals Dutch Criminal Justice for Ethiopian War Crimes

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 633-659
Author(s):  
Lachezar Yanev
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Legislation And Jurisprudence ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract The past few years have witnessed a proliferation of universal jurisdiction proceedings in Europe, many of which concern asylum seekers suspected of committing international crimes in Syria and the wider region. Alongside the known practical challenges of such trials, these trials also raise a range of normative questions regarding inter alia the scope of universal jurisdiction and the applicable legal standards in such proceedings. This article unpacks several such questions through the lens of a recent Dutch case in which a former refugee, who was granted asylum in The Netherlands and later obtained Dutch citizenship, was tried and convicted by a local court in The Hague of war crimes committed in Ethiopia four decades ago. The judges used an amalgam of Dutch and (customary) international criminal law to convict the accused. They defined the charged war crimes in strict conformity with the standards established in international legislation and jurisprudence, relied exclusively on Dutch law to define one of the applied modes of criminal liability (co-perpetration), and synthesized Dutch and international law to define the other (command responsibility). To what extent does the notion of universal jurisdiction accommodate such choices of law, and how is the use of domestic criminal law on modes of liability in such proceedings compatible with the principle of legality?

scholarly journals Criminal Liability of Legal Persons in Case of Computer Crime: A European Union Response

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-143
Author(s):  
Libor Klimek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Computer Crime ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Third

Abstract The contribution deals with the criminal liability of legal persons in case of computer crime. It is divided into three sections. The first section briefly introduces computer crime and relevant legislation of the European Union in the area of criminal law, which is the basis of that liability. While the second section is focused on provisions of criminal liability of legal persons, the third section is focused on sanctions for legal persons.

scholarly journals REFORM OF THE RUSSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION LEGISLATION: OECD ECONOMIC CONDITION OR LEGAL IMPORTANCE

2014 ◽  
pp. 188-194
Author(s):  
E. L. Sidorenko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Economic Condition ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
National Legal System

In this paper we define the prospects for the criminalization of promises and offers a bribe to a foreign official or an official of a public international organization in the Russian criminal law. Despite the increased interest in the problem of implementation of international law in the national legal system, many aspects of the topic studied. These include punishment, the possibility of establishing criminal liability for bribery. OECD anti-corruption standards considered in working with three positions: through Russia ratified the convention, through the analysis of the experience of the criminalization of bribery of foreign public officials in foreign legislation and from the perspective of the established system of national criminal and administrative law. The paper presents a systematic analysis of the proposal and the promise of a bribe as socially dangerous acts. Refined methods of implementation of anti-corruption standards in the Russian legislation. Problems has led to widespread use of the system, comparative law and documentary approaches. The paper concludes formulate concrete proposals to improve the criminal law and identifies strategic directions of modern anti-corruption policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document