Suchergebnisse

This work analyzes changes to criminal procedure that express calls for revenge. It specifically addresses the role of the victims' rights movement in supporting changes to the rules of evidence, and especially the rules concerning character evidence. Recent changes have relaxed the prohibition on character evidence and have increased the importance of judicial discretion. Against recent calls to restrict discretion by reinstating a form of legalism, this work argues that reinstituting rules is unlikely in light of the strong influence of the victims' rights movement. As such, attention must be placed on improving the exercise of discretion by trial judges.

The Ley de Vagos y Maleantes (1933) constitutes the first systematic treatment of social dangerousness in Spanish law. It remained in force until 1970, when it was replaced by the Ley de Peligrosidad y Rehabilitación Social, which remained in force until 1995. Thus, the concept of social dangerousness and its consequences, the safety measures, were legally and positively recognized in three politically incompatible regimes: the Republic, the Franco dictatorship and constitutional democracy. Beyond the differences of the successive normative frameworks, homosexuality was considered a paradigm of dangerousness, and as such was defined, labeled and excluded. Each political model contributed with its own ideological argument, but the common result was - if it isn't still- the exclusion of a collective whose only dangerousness lay in the fact of understanding sexual autonomy in a different way from the hegemonic stereotypes in each case. The mechanisms of discipline and control were dressed up in legal-criminal clothing, but the definition of their nuclear assumption- dangerousness - and the implementation of the sanctioning system - safety measures - were always based on principles that were incompatible with those that characterize democratic criminal law. ; La Ley de Vagos y Maleantes (1933) constituye el primer tratamiento sistemático de la peligrosidad social en el Derecho español. Su vigencia se prolongó hasta 1970, en que fue sustituida por la Ley de Peligrosidad y Rehabilitación Social, vigente a su vez hasta 1995. Así, el concepto de peligrosidad social y sus consecuencias, las medidas de seguridad, tuvieron reconocimiento jurídico- positivo en tres regímenes políticamente incompatibles: República, dictadura franquista, democracia constitucional. Por encima de las diferencias de los sucesivos marcos normativos, la homosexualidad fue considerada paradigma de peligrosidad, y como tal fue definida, etiquetada y excluida. Cada modelo político aportó su propio argumentario ideológico, pero el resultado común fue -si es que no sigue siendo- la exclusión de un colectivo cuya única peligrosidad radicaba en el hecho de entender la autonomía sexual de modo distinto a los estereotipos hegemónicos en cada caso. Los mecanismos de disciplina y control se revistieron con ropajes jurídico-penales, pero la definición de su presupuesto nuclear -la peligrosidad- y la implementación del sistema sancionatorio -las medidas de seguridad- se asentaron siempre en principios incompatibles con los que caracterizan al Derecho penal democrático.

"This ground-breaking textbook engages readers in conversation about responding to the effects of diversity within formal criminal justice systems in Westernized nation-states. Moving past a binary concept of diversity that involves only race and gender, this book elaborates upon a wide variety of other forms of diversity, including sexuality, disability, mental health, gendered identity, refugees, the young and the ageing, and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) peoples, with an awareness of how intersecting identities make some people more vulnerable than others. With reported statistics providing only a snapshot of the incongruent experiences of diverse minorities in contact with criminal justice systems, there is a clear need for nuanced training and accessible information regarding diversity in criminal justice. The book examines diversity in terms of both criminal justice agents and justice-involved individuals such as people in prison, those convicted of crimes, the victimized, and the community. This volume brings together a group of international scholars to articulate on each of the identified populations, examining the effect of culture and diversity on criminal justice outcomes and outlining how those diverse perspectives can improve criminal justice service delivery overall. Incorporating case studies, reflections, and activity questions, this book is a valuable resource for courses in criminology, criminal justice, corrections, and law enforcement, and is ideal for any program focusing on multiculturalism and diversity in criminal justice. Scholars, researchers, and professionals will also benefit from the analysis"--

A discussion of the key 2004 legal developments for the European Union highlights cases & judicial decisions concerning the free movement & equal treatment of EU citizens, economic & monetary union, community competition law, discrimination of sexual minorities, the principle of supremacy, & Member State & EU noncontractual liability. J. Zendejas

Abstract:The guarantee of the right to privacy is one of the big challenges ofany modern system of law, and thus, it is also of our criminal court proceedings. For a long time, the Spanish Criminal Procedural Act, has lacked a regulation in relation to investigative acts that have been originated as a consequence of the appearance of modern technologies, and this has created not few procedural new problems. The legal reform undertaken by the Act 13/2015, dated October 5th, aims at solving this situation of lack of sufficient legislation. We study in this paper the demands arisen from the rule of law principle with the intention of determining whether the new Act 13/2015 properly defines the modalities and the scope of the power attributed to authorities, so as to afford individuals with an adequate protection against arbitrary exercise of authority. We intend to determine to what extent, and under what circumstances, intromissions in the constitutional rights recognized by Section 18 of the Spanish Constitution carried out as part of the above mentioned criminal investigations would be legitimate. ; Resumen:La garantía del derecho a la esfera privada es uno de los grandes desafíosde los ordenamientos jurídicos en la actualidad y, por tanto,también de nuestro proceso penal. La Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminalespañola, durante mucho tiempo, ha estado huérfana de regulacióncon respecto a los actos de investigación nacidos con la aparición delas nuevas tecnologías, lo que ha ocasionado no pocos problemas procesales.La reforma llevada a cabo por la Ley Orgánica 13/2015, de 5de octubre, trata de paliar esta situación de insuficiencia normativa.Se estudian en este trabajo las exigencias derivadas del principio delegalidad con objeto de determinar, si la nueva Ley define las modalidadesy la extensión del ejercicio del poder otorgado con la suficienteprecisión para aportar al individuo una protección adecuada contra laarbitrariedad. Se trata de determinar hasta dónde y en qué supuestosserán legítimas las intromisiones en el ámbito de los derechos fundamentalesreconocidos en el art. 18 de la Constitución española comoconsecuencia de la realización de determinadas diligencias de investigaciónpenal.Abstract:The guarantee of the right to privacy is one of the big challenges ofany modern system of law, and thus, it is also of our criminal court proceedings. For a long time, the Spanish Criminal Procedural Act, has lacked a regulation in relation to investigative acts that have been originated as a consequence of the appearance of modern technologies, and this has created not few procedural new problems. The legal reform undertaken by the Act 13/2015, dated October 5th, aims at solving this situation of lack of sufficient legislation. We study in this paper the demands arisen from the rule of law principle with the intention of determining whether the new Act 13/2015 properly defines the modalities and the scope of the power attributed to authorities, so as to afford individuals with an adequate protection against arbitrary exercise of authority. We intend to determine to what extent, and under what circumstances, intromissions in the constitutional rights recognized by Section 18 of the Spanish Constitution carried out as part of the above mentioned criminal investigations would be legitimate.

Standard conceptions of the relationship between international law and war in International Relations (IR) mostly oscillate between the sceptical view that law is mostly irrelevant in times of conflict, and the optimistic view that law is a meaningful moral standard that effectively constrains violence. Modern asymmetric conflicts between liberal democratic states and non-state actors such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or Hamas challenge these conceptions, however, as they are at once increasingly legal and extremely violent. Drawing inspiration from IR and International Law (IL) scholarship from multiple theoretical paradigms, this article examines the legal asymmetries before, during, and after asymmetric conflict. Noting that law is at once a useful tool and a strong normative force, it argues that a good understanding of legal asymmetries can supplement existing theories of asymmetric war, continue the dissolution of false dichotomies and open up interesting avenues of research in IR, and help both scholars and policymakers understand how international law influences modern asymmetric conflict against non-state actors. Adapted from the source document.