Taking responsibility for criminal responsibility: comments on Rejecting Retributivism: Free Will, Punishment, and Criminal Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-137
Author(s):  
Chloë Kennedy
Author(s):  
Thomas Hartvigsson

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to present a solution to a problem that arises from the fact that people who commit crimes under the influence of serious mental disorders may still have a capacity to refuse treatment. Several ethicists have argued that the present legislation concerning involuntary treatment of people with mental disorder is discriminatory and should change to the effect that psychiatric patients can refuse care on the same grounds as patients in somatic care. However, people with mental disorders who have committed crimes and been exempted from criminal responsibility would then fall outside the scope of criminal justice as well as that of the psychiatric institutions if they were to refuse care. In this paper, I present and develop a solution to how society should deal with this group of people, called Advance criminal responsibility. The basic idea being that if a person with a potentially responsibility exempting psychiatric condition refuses care, that person is responsible for any future criminal acts which are due to the mental disorder.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 59-68
Author(s):  
A. Iashchenko

The article is devoted to the research of measures of criminal justice response to prohibitions in the field of traffic safety and vehicle operation. It is noted that the primary role in state response to violation of criminal justice prohibitions in the field of traffic safety and vehicle operation is given to punishment, but no less important role is paid to other alternative to prohibition measures of criminal justice nature based on the concussion (special confiscation) or the encouragement (exemption from criminal responsibility or serving a sentence). It is concluded that the normative regulations of threats of application of certain punitive measures of criminal justice nature in sanctions of the articles of this section of the Special part in which the legislator defines the threat of application of various types of punishment for committing the crimes stipulated in crimes’ dispositions, needs specification from the point of view of the system interconnection, along with the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, whereas the practice of application of special confiscation its further distribution and development, considering the proposed recommendations of its delimitation with the so called criminal procedural confiscation as means of criminal procedural concussion. In particular, it is noted that such clarification may be implemented either by enforcing additional penalties specified in the sanctions of Part 1, 2, 3 of Article 286, part 1 of Article 287 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, to the common list of types of punishments, with their separate meaningful definition in the corresponding articles of the section X of the General part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, or by covering normative definition in sanctions of the specified articles of section XI of the Special part of threats of application of such additional types of punishments according to the existing parts of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In this regard the sanctions of Article 286 and 287 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine propose to make appropriate changes. As for the practice of applying special confiscation for committing crimes in the field of traffic safety and vehicle operation, it is recommended that the question of its implementation should be based on the fact that the subject of special confiscation may be defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Art. 96-2 of the Criminal Code - items 6, 6-1 part 9 of Art. 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code, paragraph 2, part 1 of Art. 96-2 of the Criminal Code - item 2 part 9 of Art. 100 of the CPC, paragraph 3, part 1 of Art. 96-2 of the Criminal Code - item 5 part 9 of Art. 100 of the CPC, paragraph 4, part 1 of Art. 96-2 of the Criminal Code - item 1 part 9 of Art. 100 of the CPC items of the material world that possess a certain property value, and are usually considered as physical evidence in criminal proceedings initiated on the fact of committing certain crimes in the field of traffic safety and vehicle operation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Muchammad Chasani

The regulation of corporate criminal liability in Indonesia's criminal justice system is basically a new and still debatable issue. It is said that because in the Criminal Code is not recognized and regulated explicitly about the corporation as a subject of criminal law. This is a natural thing since the WvS Criminal Code still adheres to the principle of "societas delinquere non potest" or "non-potest university delinquere", that is, a legal entity can not commit a crime. Thus, if in a society there is a criminal offense, then the criminal act is deemed to be done by the board of the corporation concerned. Regarding the corporate criminal responsibility system in Indonesia, in the corruption law Article 20 paragraph (1), if the corporation committed a criminal act of corruption, then those responsible for the criminal act shall be the corporation only, the management only, or the corporation and its management. Thus, it can be said that the regulation of corporate criminal liability in the legal system in Indonesia is expressly only regulated in special criminal legislation, because the Criminal Code of WvS still adheres to the principle of "societas delinquere nonpotest" so it is not possible to enforce corporate criminal liability in it.


Author(s):  
Arlie Loughnan

The Model Criminal Code (MCC) was intended to be a Code for all Australian jurisdictions. It represents a high point of faith in the value and possibility of systematising, rationalising and modernising criminal law. The core of the MCC is Chapter 2, the ‘general principles of criminal responsibility’, which outlines the ‘physical’ and ‘fault’ elements of criminal offences, and defines concepts such as recklessness. This paper assesses the MCC as a criminal law reform project and explores questions of how the MCC came into being, and why it took shape in certain ways at a particular point in time. The paper tackles these questions from two different perspectives—‘external’ and ‘internal’ (looking at the MCC from the ‘outside’ and the ‘inside’). I make two main arguments. First, I argue that, driven by a ‘top down’ law reform process, the MCC came into being at a time when changes in crime and criminal justice were occurring, and that it may be understood as an attempt to achieve stability in a time of change. Second, I argue that the significance of the principles of criminal responsibility, which formed the central pivot of the MCC, lies on the conceptual level—in relation to the language through which the criminal law is thought about, organised and reformed.


Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret

This chapter focuses on the extent to which the contemporary project of international criminal justice cannot easily lay claim to what it imagines to be its past, because that past, despite superficial similarities, often exhibited fundamentally different concerns. It highlights three areas in which international criminal justice today is arguably dramatically different from how it was understood up to the 1990s. First, international criminal justice was for a long time much less obsessed with the criminalization of international law prohibitions specifically, and much more interested in the transnational dimensions of the criminal law. Second, it was much less committed to a strict model of individual accountability under international law and much more willing to see the state as the central pivot of international criminal responsibility. Third, it was intimately linked to peace projects whereas it has become intimately associated to the fight against atrocities and mass human rights violations.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 827-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Malekian

Analysing the philosophy of criminal justice and international criminal jurisdiction is indeed very complex. At a minimum, one has to be familiar with both common law and civil law systems. Examining the Gaza Strip situation is also simultaneously a very sophisticated task. It needs, to some extent, an understanding, not only of natural and positive law, but also of many principles and cultural heritages of, at least, two ethnic groups, the Palestinians, and the Jews. It is not certainly a question of religious theories, but the potentiality of rightful co-existence. It also requires understanding why these very two old groups have been, since the creation of Israel, constantly suffering from serious armed conflicts. The Gaza crimes are some of the most recent recognized crimes committed against the population of occupied territories. The intention of this article is to re-examine the historical creation of the State of Israel, the influence of the politicians of the United Kingdom in its creation, the murder of European Jews and the killing of physical and psychological integrity of Palestinians under the authority of Israeli governments. The article deals with some of the most significant norms of international criminal law and human rights law that ought to be respected in national or international conflicts regardless of the target of attack. It deals with the concept of criminal responsibility of individuals under the law of international criminal courts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document