Suchergebnisse

State constitutional rights and procedural protections, of course, can only be asserted in state criminal prosecutions. As a result, where a defendant is prosecuted in federal court for conduct over which both a state and the federal government have criminal jurisdiction, he or she may be at a distinct disadvantage simply because of the fortuity or misfortune of having attracted the attention of federal prosecutors. And, upon conviction, a defendant will likely face a drastically harsher sentence than that which a state court would have imposed for the same conduct. The cumulative impact, therefore, of Congress's federalization, nationalization and standardization of criminal law and the U.S. Supreme Court's constitutionalization of criminal procedure has been to create categories of crimes for which a defendant could be prosecuted both federally and under state law. The level of procedural protection and severity of punishment the accused receives for the same conduct may vary significantly depending on which sovereign prosecutes the crime. It is this procedural disparity at which this article takes aim. Part II of this article sets out a brief background of the nationalization, federalization and standardization trend that has characterized the development of federal criminal law since the Civil War. Part III describes the state/federal procedural disparity gap created by the lower level of criminal procedural protection available to some defendants prosecuted federally for conduct traditionally within the purview of states and over which states have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government. Part IV discusses the receding tide of federalism, nationalization, and standardization in the criminal law and explains why rectifying the state/federal procedural disparity gap must be included in that recalibration process." Part V submits that Congress has the obligation to address this state/federal procedural disparity and proposes that Congress enact legislation requiring federal courts to apply state rules of criminal procedure in concurrent jurisdiction prosecutions where a given federal rule does not provide the same level of protection as its state counterpart. A failure to do so, this article asserts, perpetuates an unjustifiable state/federal procedural disparity between defendants who are prosecuted federally for conduct over which a state has a superior historical and political jurisdictional claim.

Reasons for the rise and extent of criminal offenses committed against tourists in the Soviet Union.

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copy Right Page -- Content Page -- Introduction -- Part One The Genesis of Sharī'a Law -- 1 Qur'ānic Legislation -- 2 Legal Practice in the First Century of Islam -- 3 Jurisprudence in Embryo: The Early Schools of Law -- 4 Master Architect: MuḤammad Ibn-IdrĪs Ash-ShĀfi'Ī -- 5 Concluding Stages of Growth -- Part Two Legal Doctrine and Practice in Mediaeval Islam -- 6 The Classical Theory of Law -- 7 Unity and Diversity in SharĪ'a Law -- 8 Sectarian Legal Systems in Islam -- 9 Islamic Government and Sharīīa Law -- 10 Islamic Society and Sharī'a Law -- Part Three Islamic Law in Modern Times -- 11 Foreign Influences: The Reception of European Laws -- 12 Administration of Sharī'a Law in Contemporary Islam -- 13 Taqlīd and Legal Reform -- 14 Neo-IjtihĀd -- Conclusion -- Glossary -- Notes -- Index

This article is focused on the social and moral problems of insolvency and indebtedness, presenting and analysing the legal structure of the Swedish Act (1994) of Reconstruction of Insolvency. The analysis is related to a revitalisation of Durkheim's sociology on the forms of social solidarity and, thereby, to the search for moral bonds in our modern and rationalised society. Thus, the analysis will focus on the importance of the sacred symbolism of making efforts and presenting good will. By connecting the insolvency law to a Durkheimian analysis of social solidarity, the article presents functionality and morality as different forces that emphasise the 'sacred symbolism of punishment', in order to both strengthen 'work ethics' and make legitimate the principle of social welfare and the 'security net'. According to the analysis, an individual must trustworthily deserve, in a moral sense, the legal opportunity of clearing his or her debts. The clearing of the debt must be pointed out as fair and proved, through the quality of effort and sacrifice.

Abstract
The right to legal capacity (Article 12) is the most contested realization of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). If implemented, it would revolutionize the position of persons with psychosocial disabilities, intellectual disabilities and other cognitive conditions. Yet its implementation has been hindered by conceptual misunderstandings and a lack of distinction between the key questions in the debate. This contribution first demonstrates that advocates and opponents apply 'substitute decision-making' and 'legal capacity' differently, leading to different expectations. Second, it substantiates that once all the concepts are understood correctly, three distinct questions underpin the interpretation of Article 12 CRPD: (1) What makes a person's will reliable? (2) What is good support? and (3) How can such a reliable will be diverged from, given other interests? Instead of giving the answers, this contribution brings consistency to the debate and proposes a pathways for a future approach to legal capacity.