The Characters of Criminal Law

Criminal law theorists necessarily start their theorizing with some idea of their subject. The dominant figure in the canon is the criminal actor understood as a freestanding individual, removed from his group affiliations. I call him Model 1. Then there is the demographic or social model of the criminal person. Here our disciplinary characters are treated as members of a population that have certain propensities. Those who subscribe to this second model tend to be thinking of real historical and social people, located in places and contexts, as well as people with bodies and sexes. I call this Model 2. Most criminal laws operate on the basis of a Model 1 person, with an individual without social characteristics or context. But occasionally these demographic concerns are directly expressed in criminal laws. The English criminal law of rape is one such law. It still names men as the people of concern. The English law of rape therefore poses a challenge for Model 1 individualists, requiring them to make some sense of this population-specific law. So, when individualists write about the nature of rape and its law, as they often do, it is highly revealing of their thinking about their own criminal law character. Here I consider the work of legal philosopher John Gardner, who has written influentially about English rape law, to discover what an individualist does with a law which acknowledges its population of concern. What happens when the two paradigms conflict?

Ketidakadilan dalam Informasi Kriminal (Wacana Pembandingan Aktor Berita Kriminal di Headline Surat Kabar Koran Merapi)

Headline, the main news in the front of page of a newspaper, is a strategic place to convey information. Of course, headline in yellow journalism ought to be attractive with bombastic content’s characteristic and sometimes it shows off sensuality. Koran Merapi is one of newspaper which has the positioning as a law and criminal newspaper. In other side, Criminal reality always shows some characters such as: suspect, police and victim. Based on constructivism ideas, mass media will always construct reality to be published in media. It means that reality in media will re-construct those characters. The research question is formulated as follows: how is the criminal actor constructed by Koran Merapi? Using critical approach through discourse analysis, the research will investigate the basic idea of occurring construction. Van Leeuwen’s models for the text analysis and Norman Fairclough’s for the context are used to explore actor and marginalization in criminal news. The police are depicted as somebody who is admirable and acts as the superhero. The suspects are depicted as a strong person before the victim but weak before the police. The victims are the characters who are always threatened by crimes, are not able to overcome it without any help from the hero.

The Criminology of Genocide

Genocide, often referred to as the “crime of crimes,” has produced hundreds of millions of murdered, raped, sexually assaulted, forcibly displaced, kidnapped, mutilated, and robbed victims. While criminologists are dedicated to explaining these types of crimes and social group conflict more broadly, they typically apply these crimes to interpersonal and intranational criminal acts of violence. As a result, criminologists have failed to incorporate genocide adequately into their research agendas leaving the “crime of crimes” neglected and undertheorized by the discipline. There are notable exceptions, including critical criminologists who frequent condemn mainstream criminology for not considering the role of the state as a criminal actor. Furthermore, recent publications by criminologists that focus on the genocide in Darfur and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda offer hope that historical neglect is declining. Nonetheless, criminology has been slow moving and nearly silent toward incorporating genocide within its disciplinary boundaries. Criminologists possess the theories and methods necessary to make valuable contributions to documenting, describing, and explaining “the crime of crimes” and to understanding the consequences of genocidal victimization.

HUKUMAN MATI PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

AbstrakThe criminal conduct is not only focused on the criminal law but also insociology aspect can be observed as economic, politic and psychologyaspects. Under those reflections then the author reasons that dead sentenceapplication to the criminal actor therefore resulted injustice that alsoforcible. Like murder that has ojien occurred by poverty or neurosis. Underthe author thoughts on punishment concept that has been created iscorrection that contained education and re-socialization aspects. Those allare shown that dead sentence aims to result deterrent not be allained. In theinternational fora under United Nations Organization program at 1971 and1977 has been intentioned to abolish dead punishment had got positiveresponds. More regards are come from European countries who graduallyadopted in to their "European Convention for the Protection of HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms ". Under the convention dead punishmentabolishment initially is applied on dead sentence in peace time

A New Systematic Explanation of the Types and Mitigating Effects of Exculpatory Defenses

When someone performs a criminal act, there is a rebuttable presumption that she is particularly blameworthy and liable to a particularly severe punishment for the act. The presumption is rebutted when the criminal actor has an exculpatory defense. Such defenses mitigate how much a criminal actor is blameworthy and liable to be punished for her act. In this paper, I begin by spelling out a taxonomy of the main types of exculpatory defenses. Then I argue that a restorative signaling theory of punitive desert best explains why such defenses have their mitigating effects. According to the theory, how much someone is blameworthy and deserves to be punished for performing a criminal act corresponds to the severity of the burdens she is obligated to undertake to restore the conditions of trust she undermined by performing the act. The theory explains the mitigating effects of exculpatory defenses by explaining why they mitigate the severity of burdens that a criminal actor must undertake to fulfill the obligation of restoration she incurs from performing her act.