Suchergebnisse

Wann Förderungsverhalten zu einem fremden Delikt nicht die Voraussetzungen strafbarer Beteiligung erfüllt, wird gegenwärtig kontrovers diskutiert. Der Autor interpretiert diese praxisrelevante Zurechnungsfrage als Abgrenzung der Verantwortungsbereiche anhand der objektiven Bedeutung des sozialen Kontakts. Die Grenzziehung erfolgt daher durch Aufzeigen objektiver Kriterien: Ein Verhalten, dessen Bedeutung in seinem konkreten sozialen Kontext auf eine stereotyp-sozialadäquate Semantik verweist, ist strafrechtlich "neutral" und keine Beteiligung (Regressverbot). Die strafrechtliche Zurechnung reagiert also auf die Anonymität und Komplexität sozialer Kontakte dadurch, dass die gesellschaftlich praktizierten Bedingungen, welche ein Förderungsverhalten – ohne Rekurs auf das Subjektive – als erlaubt riskant kennzeichnen, im Vorfeld der positivierten Beteiligungsregelung der §§ 25 ff. StGB Berücksichtigung finden. Die entwickelten Grundsätze werden anhand von Fallbeispielen verdeutlicht.Der Autor war mehrere Jahre Gastwissenschaftler am Rechtsphilosophischen Seminar der Universität Bonn und ist nun als Universitätsdozent für Strafrecht und Rechtsanwalt in Lima (Peru) tätig

On August 11, the last day of the ongoing session of Parliament, the Indian Government tabled a notice that it wished to introduce three new bills on the Floor of the House for consideration. These were proposed statutes to replace the holy trinity of Indian criminal law: The Indian Penal Code of 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, were to be replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam respectively. Even though the reform was marketed as an attempt to break from the colonial origins of criminal law, it actually represents a resurgence of the colonial-style authoritarian approach, rather than an effort to build upon the relatively modest progress made half a century ago in advancing individual freedom and civil rights.

Searching and seizing voluminous data is a challenge that Indonesian law enforcement authorities should resolve. Indonesia does not have a comprehensive regime on personal data protection. The absence of a coherent legal framework on personal data protection does not negate the obligation of Indonesian law enforcement authorities to protect personal data of Indonesian subjects. However, the absence of the framework may lead to uncertainties or ambiguities on how the authorities should protect personal data. Against the uncertainties and ambiguities, Indonesian law enforcement authorities should resolve issues of voluminous data in obtaining e-information with the prevailing legislation. This article attempts to answer the question: how may Indonesian law enforcement authorities interpret the current law to establish a coherent legal framework to protect personal data in searching or seizing voluminous data? The interpretation is instrumental in supporting the development of the Indonesian regime on personal data protection. It proposes that the Indonesian criminal procedure law should emphasise the active role of the chief judges of competent district courts and should incorporate particularity and proportionality as conditions and safeguards in the execution of search and seizure.

Criminal prosecution of monopolistic activities in the form of market cartelization is the most sensitive instrument for individuals and can both have a serious deterrent effect and restrict behavior that is beneficial to the public welfare. The paper considers theoretical and economic aspects of choosing an antitrust enforcement regime in view of the projected changes in the discussion and application of the norms of article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account possible differences between organizing a cartel, entering into a cartel agreement and participating in a cartel. It is obvious that there are various options for correlating the concept of concluding an agreement and participating in it, including anti-competitive. However, it requires realistic assumptions about human behavior. Based on the principle of methodological individualism and the concept of bounded rationality used in economic sciences, the authors demonstrate restrictions on projecting the ratio of agreement conclusion/participation of legal entities (economic entities) on actions of individuals. Practical issues of designing criminal punishment for cartels are considered taking into account various legal concepts, including the form and types of guilt, as well as on the basis of comparison with other articles of the Criminal Code providing punishment for collective unlawful acts. In connection with the reproduction of the tradition of hostility in antitrust legislation, the Russian antimonopoly legislation has identified the risks of objective imputation (risks of type I errors) and insufficient punishment of the cartel organizer (risks of type II errors) in case of underestimation of the weight of economic concepts based on the principle of methodological individualism and the assumption of bounded rationality of individuals.

Preliminary Material /Thom Brooks -- Introduction /Thom Brooks -- Review Article: Democracy, Law and Authority /Samantha Besson -- Rorty, the First Amendment and Antirealism: Is Reliance upon Truth Viewpoint-Based Speech Regulation? /Brian E. Butler -- Is There a Right to Polygamy? Marriage, Equality and Subsidizing Families in Liberal Public Justification /Andrew F. March -- The Ideality of Law /Sean Coyle -- Review Article: Legal Theory, Law, and Normativity /Leonard Kahn -- Review Article: Raz on the Social Dependence of Values /Hanoch Sheinman -- Legal Reasons: Between Universalism and Particularism /María Cristina Redondo -- Criminal Harms /Thom Brooks -- On the Non-Instrumental Value of Basic Rights /Rowan Cruft -- Group Rights and Group Agency /Adina Preda -- State Denunciation of Crime /Christopher Bennett -- Imprisonable Offenses /Richard L. Lippke -- Punishing the Guilty, Not Punishing the Innocent /Richard L. Lippke -- 'Who's Still Standing?' A Comment on Antony Duff's Preconditions of Criminal Liability /Matt Matravers -- The Paradox of Forgiveness /Leo Zaibert -- Bibliography /Thom Brooks -- Index /Thom Brooks.