The pandemic’s mass: an Anglo-Catholic essay on certain Eucharistic issues raised by COVID-19

This article explores a number of issues related to the challenges introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic as it concerns the celebration of the Eucharist and attempts to do so from an Anglo-Catholic perspective. The article considers the overarching question of the extent to which the Church is willing to be open to practices that do not fully express the ideal or the fullest expression of the liturgy in light of serious mitigating circumstances. The following constellation of issues related to the Eucharist and the pandemic are examined: the prohibition against celebration of the Eucharist in light of the historical realities about the frequency of communion reception; the basis in the prayer book for the practice of spiritual communion and reception of communion in one kind; the theological challenges of so-called “drive-by Communion”; and the thorny question of a priest celebrating the Eucharist with no other persons in the church building ( sine populo).

About system legislative viruses and social foundations of creating a new system of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The article contains critical remarks about the draft of the new system of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is presented for discussion by its developers and is characterized by the presence of many new provisions. It is established that this system has significant shortcomings, which are associated with the incorrect reflection in the content of criminal law norms of the essential social features of crimes. To identify such shortcomings in the system of criminal law, the concept of "system legislative viruses" is highlighted and the need to have protection against such viruses in the system is substantiated. The necessity to distinguish between the legislative virus, the negative consequences of which in the form of human rights violations are local in nature, and the system legislative virus, the negative consequences of which are large-scale, is substantiated. Legislative viruses that result in violation of the principle of proportionality between punishment and social characteristics of acts are analyzed. Proposals for improving the system of the Criminal Code of Ukraine have been formulated. In particular, they concern the use of the category "public danger", which must perform a human rights function in the system of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is proposed to classify crimes using the social values ​​they encroach on and the extent of the damage that has been or may be caused. Emphasis is placed on the need to allocate at the law enforcement level the severity (danger) of the crime: 1) with particularly mitigating circumstances, 2) with mitigating circumstances, 3) without mitigating and aggravating circumstances, 4) with aggravating circumstances and 6) with especially aggravating circumstances. The court must impose penalties based on these degrees and the legal restrictions associated with them. The necessity of providing legal certainty on the social basis of criminal liability and restriction of rights for committing a crime, as well as on the legislative assessment of cases of simultaneous commission of several crimes and the rules of their qualification is substantiated. It is proposed to supplement the Criminal Code of Ukraine with Article 2-1 "Rule of Law", which will ensure justice in cases of errors made by the legislator and in other cases where there is a discrepancy between formal legal requirements and social characteristics of the crime.

The principle of proportionality and strict liability of football clubs for the behavior of spectators at UEFA competitions

The subject. This article is devoted to the content of the principle of proportionality in disputes about the strict liability of football clubs for the behavior of spectators. The proportionality means that the sanction corresponds to the offense and it has two dimensions. Firstly, the more serious the offense is the higher the sanction should be. Secondly, proportionality protects sport from unreasonably low sanctions while the violation is serious.The purpose of the study is the content of the principle of proportionality: the use of related principles of sports jurisprudence, exceptional circumstances (mitigating and aggravating) in the practice of applying clubs` strict liability for spectators` behavior in UEFA competitions over the period 2007-2021. Liability without fault increases the value of investigating the factual circumstances of a dispute. The broad discretion of the bodies raises the question of the validity of the choice of aggravating circumstances or the refusal of mitigating circumstances. Therefore, the jurisdictional authority in each specific dispute must search for exceptional circumstances thereby fulfilling the principle of proportionality. The second important nuance of strict liability in the UEFA regulations is the difference in the interconnection between violations and sanctions. In some articles, the sanction is predetermined. It is possible to reduce such a sanction only in the presence of an exceptional circumstance and to increase it in the presence of an aggravating circumstance. Separately considered, in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, other principles: principles of predictability of sanctions, equal treatment, the precedent value of decisions on similar disputes (stare decisis).Methodology. The methodological basis of the stated research involves the generalization and analysis of the practice of two institutions of sports jurisprudence. Firstly, the jurisdictional bodies of UEFA are publicly available, as well as available to the author, but currently not available for free download on the UEFA website. Secondly, the relevant decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport are in the public domain. Turning to the approaches of law enforcement officers regarding the content of the principle of proportionality meant comparing positions that did not differ in inconsistency. As a result of the analysis of the practice were systematized and identified typical exceptional circumstances, unique exceptional circumstances, and specific enforcement of the principle of proportionality.The main results of research and the field of their application. The article examined the normative limits of sanctions in the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations; exceptional circumstances affecting the choice of sanction; search by the law enforcement officer of the content of exceptional circumstances; principles of predictability of sanctions, equal treatment, the precedent value of decisions on similar disputes (stare decisis) in connection with the verification of sanctions for proportionality. Compliance with the principle of proportionality, in this case, should protect the club from an unreasonably harsh and grossly disproportional sanction. Therefore, it is important to analyze the factual circumstances: which of them are mitigating and which are aggravating. In other categories of offenses, the sanction remains at the discretion of the jurisdictional authority. In such violations, the principle of proportionality takes on a special value. The more flexibility in the choice of sanction is, the higher is the risk of abuse by the jurisdictional bodes. UEFA`s enforcement practice is seeking exceptional circumstances that are not consistent enough to be predictable. Some consistency exists only concerning aggravating circumstances. There is an unreasonably strict approach to mitigating circumstances. The practice of CAS does not differ from the practice of UEFA in terms of strict liability compositions. The principle of proportionality in sports jurisprudence can be interconnected with other legal concepts. Such concepts are equal treatment, predictability, and so-called stare decisis.Conclusions. For the slightly undisputed observance of the principle of proportionality, several requirements must be fulfilled. First, analyze the factual circumstances to find exceptional circumstances among them. Secondly, always choose the minimum sanction in the absence of aggravating circumstances, since strict liability is a forced legal institution. Thirdly, indicate in the decisions what circumstances are mitigating, what aggravating circumstances have been established, and how they both affect the choice of a sanction. Fourth, use the previous decisions of the UEFA`s jurisdictional bodies and CAS of the strict liability offenses when the actual circumstances are close.

CURRENT SUICIDAL SITUATIONS WITHIN THE ROMANIAN AREA

This article has been focussed on presentation of an older sociological issue – committing suicide /killing oneself – within new interpretative contexts specific to current Romanian society. The argumentation is therefore developed towards attracting three sustainable conclusions: a. right to property over one’s own body should not metamorphose into individual’s right to kill himself; b) no matter how many logical arguments we might have for committing suicide as a normal fact, it will naturally remain a pathological social fact; c. social actions against suiciding cannot otherwise be but ante factum. Consequently, social actors should be informed and get awareness on suicidal risk factors within the environment they are living in. This last aspect shall occupy the most part of the pages of this article. The conclusion of the whole approach is that no matter how many justifications, excuses and mitigating circumstances we may find, the suicidal act cannot be otherwise but traumatising and condemnable to society.

Insignificance in Committing Administrative Offences Provided by the Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences

The judicial practice of exemption of offenders from administrative responsibility due to insignificance provided by the Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on administrative offences has been analyzed. The problems of interpretation of the evaluative term «insignificance» as a basis for exemption from administrative responsibility under Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on administrative offences has been disclosed. The classification of the most frequent cases of drunk driving into the insignificant administrative offence has been reviewed in practice. In particular, «low index of blood alcohol content», «presence of mitigating circumstances», «positive person’s behavior after committing offence», «onset of intoxication due to the use of medicines», «no seizure of a vehicle by police officers». The delimitation of illegal behavior of a person that contains all indications of administrative offence, administrative offences with a formal composition, circumstances that mitigate responsibility, and insignificant administrative offence has been conducted. It has been indicated that person’s behavior after committed offence and circumstances that mitigate responsibility for administrative offence should not be taken into consideration for acknowledgment of its insignificance. It is identified that contrition of a guilty person, committing an offence for the first time or commitment by a person that has not been prosecuted before, difficult financial situation, compensation for the caused damage and existence of dependents, as 10 years ago continue to remain the most common basis for exemption of offenders from administrative responsibility due to insignificance. An extension term of up to one year of imposition of an administrative penalty for committing an offence provided by the Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on administrative offences has been positively assessed.

Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Putusan Perkara Tindak Pidana Narkotika

ABSTRAK Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam penjatuhan pidana terhadap pelaku penyalahguna narkotika golongan I bagi diri sendiri. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukum Yuridis Normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penyebab hakim menjatuhkan putusan berbeda terhadap kedua kasus ini karena terdapat keadaan yang meringankan terhadap kedua terdakwa. Pada studi kasus keadaan yang meringankan yang dipertimbangkan oleh hakim yaitu: karena terdakwa merupakan korban penyalahguna narkotika yang sudah kecanduan serta didukung dengan keterangan saksi di persidangan. Oleh karena itu hakim harus mempertimbangkan fakta yuridis, fakta persidangan dan fakta sosiologis dari terdakwa. Hal ini dilakukan agar terdakwa merasa bahwa hakim menjatuhkan putusan pidana sesuai dengan perbuatan terdakwa. ABSTRACT This article aims to analyze the basic considerations of judges in convicting criminals against class I narcotics abusers themselves. This research method is a normative legal research. The results of this study indicate that the cause of the judge handed down a different verdict in these two cases because there were circumstances that alleviated the two defendants. In the case study the mitigating circumstances considered by the judge are: because the defendant is a victim of narcotics who are addicted and supported by witness testimony at the trial. Therefore the judge must consider the juridical facts, the facts of the trial and the sociological facts of the defendant. This was done so that the defendant felt that the judge handed down the criminal verdict according to the defendant's actions.

The problem of desertation in the army of the Habsburg Empire: from the reign of Maria Theresa of the first decades of the nineteenth century

The article analyses the problem of desertion in the army of the Habsburg Empire and in the regiments recruited from Transylvania in the eighteenth century, a century considered by the historiography of the last decades as the classic ‘era of deserters.’ The causes of desertion are varied and they concern mainly the mode of recruitment specific to those times, when most men did not freely choose to become soldiers. Discipline based on harsh physical punishment, the strenuous efforts to which soldiers were subjected, especially during campaigns, the very poor hygiene and sanitary conditions, alcoholism and mental illnesses (melancholia, Heimweh) and, last but not least, the desire for adventure influenced this phenomenon. There were young men who defected without any qualms of conscience, going from one regiment to another or even from another army to another. In theory, defection was punishable by death, but in practice there was a wide variety of mitigating circumstances in the application of punishments, and the number of those executed was very small in relation to the number of defectors

Jury Considerations in Capital Cases

This chapter examines the types of special consideration that jurors provide in capital cases. This includes not only the instructions provided by the court, but also the weight given to aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as mandated by the decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). This chapter explores the issues around juror consideration from a multifaceted lens, examining whether instructions to jurors in capital cases are appropriately effective, given their legal, historical, and empirical context. Particular attention is paid to the context in which jurors consider evidence, testimony, and argument in the bifurcated trial proceedings mandated by Gregg, as well as varied application of the procedural mandates from state to state, and the influence of different legal frameworks. The chapter concludes with a lengthy discussion of the possible human rights and social work implications of juror instructions and provides a terse review of the literature on advocacy for procedural justice reform.

Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana Karyawan Korporasi Dalam Tindak Pidana Lingkungan Hidup (Studi Putusan No. 133/Pid.B/2013/PN. MBO)

Environmental Crimes committed by a person or corporate legal entity often occur around the environment where we live without us knowing it, especially in an environment full of companies that can damage the surrounding environment. The research method used in this study is juridical normative and descriptive analytical nature of the study. The legal regulation on environmental crime, especially regarding forest and land burning is regulated in Article 187 of the Criminal Code, Article 78 paragraph (3) of Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry, Article 69, Article 108 and Article 119 of Law Number 32 of 2009 Regarding Environmental Protection and Management, Article 48 of Law Number 18 Year 2004 Plantations. Criminal liability of corporate offenders in imprisonment for 3 (three) years and a fine of Rp. 3,000,000,000 (three billion rupiah), Determine if the fine is not paid replaced with imprisonment for 5 (five) months. Judge's consideration in this decision, that the Defendant violated Article 108 in conjunction with Article 69 paragraph (1) letter (h) jo Article 116 paragraph (1) letter (b) of Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management and jo Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code has several considerations, namely incriminating circumstances and mitigating circumstances.