Suchergebnisse

Chapter 20 of the Finnish Criminal Code, which regulates sexual offences, is currently undergoing structural changes. Focusing on the section of rape, this article investigates the amendments proposed by the Ministry of Justice in 2020 in the light of the current Finnish legislation, legal practice, supranational normative developments and societal change. Lessons are drawn from a recent research project about the attrition of sexual violence in the Finnish criminal process by a research team at the University of Turku. The article welcomes the increased emphasis on voluntariness, contextuality, power imbalances and communication in the suggested draft law. It also criticises some weaknesses of the draft legislation. Conclusively, it proposes further action to improve legal clarity and strengthen the enforcement of a new legal conceptualisation of sexual violence.

The legal norm represents the internal structure of the law as a whole. The rule of law contains in its content the prescriptions to be followed, the rights and obligations of the subjects of law. All the social actions of our peers are placed in a normative framework, whether we are talking about law, morality, religion etc. The legal norm requires the acceptance and observance of the prescribed conduct. In this article, we have proposed to make a short analysis of the exceptions to the principle of non-retroactivity of legal norms, in particular the decriminalizing criminal norms and the criminal and contravention norms more favorable to the offender, respectively the contravenor; of interpretative legal norms; and express retroactivity.

When thinking about justified criminalization - whether some action may morally be made a criminal offense - philosophers tend to rely upon `balancing'. Arguments favoring and opposing criminalization are `weighed' on a simple beam balance; the `weightier' reasons prevail. Jonathan Schonsheck argues that this methodology is deeply flawed; among other infirmities, it fosters the neglect of items essential to a defensible decision. He urges the adoption of `filtering' - a multi-step procedure which directs one to discuss the moral authority of the state, to consider measures less coercive than a criminal statute, and to investigate the pragmatic consequences of criminalization. This procedure, he argues, imposes a structure on disputes which facilitates philosophical progress. `Filtering' is then applied to an array of public policy issues, including laws which require the use of automobile seat belts and motorcycle helmets, and laws which prohibit the use of certain psychoactive substances (`drugs'). Additionally, the book addresses a number of more theoretical issues in the philosophy of the criminal law. Throughout, it engages the work of leading philosophers: Derek Parfit, Cass R. Sunstein, Richard J. Arneson, and especially Joel Feinberg

The biggest concern for the Lithuanian national criminal and criminal procedure law is the definition of features of certain crimes and minimal terms of imprisonment for certain crimes in EU legislation, as well as withdrawal of the rule of ne bis in idem in international legal assistance in criminal matters.