Suchergebnisse

This article analyzes recent developments in Florida criminal law. The areas discussed include constitutional challenges to legislative enactments, search and seizure, confessions, speedy trial, pleas of guilty and nolo contendere, evidence, jury instructions, sentencing and the death penalty.

This collection of case stories illustrates the balance, continuity, and evolution in substantive criminal law doctrine in light of the social and political contexts in which those doctrines are perennially tested. These stories focus on the pre-litigation behavior of defendants, raising important moral and cultural questions about human nature and human society and how social norms get translated into workable legal doctrines. They survey the typical variety of doctrines addressed in a standard criminal law course, elucidating the classic themes of common law jurisprudence.

Cover title. ; v.1. Procedural and substantive law.--v.2. Evidence. ; Mode of access: Internet.

There has been no lack of attention paid to the intractable problems surrounding the law of attempt. Interest in them has been revived in England by the publication of the Law Commission's Working Paper on Inchoate Offences' and by the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Smith. As these are difficulties common to all common law jurisdictions, Canadian lawyers may be interested to learn of these recent developments. It is proposed to concentrate here on two main issues: first, what conduct constitutes an attempt and secondly, the question of impossibility. Both are discussed in the working paper; Smith deals only with impossibility. Before considering these, however, it may be useful for Canadian lawyers to have some information as to the nature of the Law Commission and the way it operates. The Commission, a full-time statutory body created in 1965 to keep English law under continuous review, is similar to the Law Reform Commission of Canada. It is examining, inter alia, the general principles of the criminal law with a view to their codification. To this end it has set up a working party consisting of Law Commissioners, members of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, representatives of the Home Office and practising lawyers to prepare working papers 6. These papers are widely circulated for comment and criticism. They do not represent the Commission's final view, nor do they necessarily have its approval. Reactions to each paper are considered and the Commission itself prepares a formal report embodying its own recommendations, including a draft bill, which is presented to the Lord Chancellor, laid before Parliament and published.

This study deals with the law of criminal complicity in both its commonlaw dimensions and as modified by legislation in England, in the Australianjurisdictions (i.e ., the Australian States and in the Commonwealth CrimesAct,19H), and in New Zealand.In the criminal law "complicity" denotes partnership in crime. As such,what might be called the doctrine of criminal complicity consists in thatcorpus of principle which governs the joint implication of each of two or morepersons in a given crime. A person my become particeps criminis in one oftwo ways,i.e., by physically perpetrating this crime or by instigating,encouraging the perpetrator to do this. The first offender is usually calleda principal in the crime , and the latter of them an accessory, or secondaryparty in its commission.For the reasons noted at the outset of Chapter One, the major stress inthis study is upon the statement and evaluation of the law relating tocriminal participation as an accessory. Nonetheless, it will of course befrequently necessary to consider the position of the principal in some detailin analysing the law of complicity.This analysis was motivated ay two ambitions, both of them traditional.The first of them was to state the law as it presently stands. This was feltto be justified, in particular, given that prior to this one (which waspublished in an earlier, and somewhat different form by the Law Book Co. Ltd.of Sydney, in July of last year), no monograph-length study had been undertakenof this topic in any of the common law jurisdictions.The seoond objective, one obviously dependent upon the fulfilment of thefirst, was to evaluate the effectiveness of this branch of the law and todetermine whether or not it is in need of legislative reform in each of thesubject jurisdictions, and if so, then in what terms. I have concluded, (1) that the law should continue to recognise a specifically derivative form of accessorial liability (derivative, in the sense that the person who instigates, encourages or assists the principal offender to commit a crime is made liable for this crime,rather than for an independent offence of an ancillary character); and (2) that the law of complicity - and in particular, that part of it dealing with accessorial liability - is susceptible to reform at a number of levels, in each of the subject jurisdictions. I have sought to take account of the law as it stood in the subject jurisdictions in the last months of 1980.

This article aims to give a succinct review of notable criminal law and procedure cases decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia during the past year. Instead of covering every ruling or rationale in these cases, the article focuses on the "take-away" of the holdings with the most precedential value. The article also summarizes noteworthy changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2017 Virginia General Assembly.

Defence date: 9 June 2014 ; Examining Board: Professor Martin Scheinin, EUI (Supervisor) Professor Nehal Bhuta, EUI Professor William Schabas, Middlesex University, London Judge Christine Baroness Van den Wyngaert, International Criminal Court. ; This PhD thesis was awarded the Cappelletti Prize. ; Complicity is a criminal law doctrine that attributes responsibility to those who do not physically perpetrate the crime. It is an essential mode of liability for core international crimes because it reaches out to senior political and military leadership. These persons do not usually engage in direct offending, yet in the context of mass atrocities they are often more culpable than foot soldiers. The Statutes of the ad hoc tribunals, hybrid courts and the International Criminal Court expressly provide for different forms of complicity, and domestic legal systems recognize it in one form or another. This is in contrast with alternative modes of liability implied from the Statutes to address the situations with multiple accused removed from the scene of the crime / (in)direct co-perpetration, extended perpetration and the joint criminal enterprise.

This article aims to provide a succinct review of noteworthy cases in the areas of criminal law and procedure that the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia decided this past year. Instead of covering every ruling or procedural point in a particular case, this article focuses on the "take- away" of the holdings with the most precedential value. This article also summarizes significant changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2014 Virginia General Assembly.

The authors have endeavored to select from the many appellate cases those that have the most significant precedential value. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes enacted by the General Assembly in the areas of criminal law and procedure.

In the previous legislative period, that is from 2013 to 2017, the Grand Coalition in the Federal Republic of Germany, consisting of Christian Democratic Party (CDU, CSU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD), under leadership of Angela Merkel, has carried out numerous reforms in the area of criminal law. Not only have the penal provisions of the Special Part of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB) been supplemented and expanded, but the basic provisions of its General Part, which are relevant and applicable to all criminal offences, have also been modified. This article presents the most important reforms. Not only are the respective motives of the legislator presented, but also the reactions of criminal science and practice. The aim is to critically assess the reforms and their impact. In addition, the article gives a brief outlook on the forthcoming German legislation in the current legislative period. The article concludes that criminal law reforms in the last legislative period mainly consisted of tightening and broadening criminal law provisions reflecting actionism and populism. The German Federal Constitutional Court is expected to review the constitutionality of several provisions. The German legislator failed to recognise that tightened rules would be ineffective in practice if prosecution did not become more effective and the likelihood of detecting crimes was not increased. In future, the re-elected Grand Coalition should take greater account of the findings of criminal science. One proposal in this context would be that the planned reform of the sanctions law for companies would also strengthen the rights of defence of companies.

This article aims to give the criminal law practitioner a succinct review of significant cases regarding criminal law and procedure decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court ofAppeals of Virginia during the past year. The authors have focused their discussion of the cases on cogent points found in the holdings. The article also briefly summarizes recent legislative enactments pertaining to criminal law.

This article examines the most significant cases from the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia over the past year. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes to the law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 Session in the field of criminal law and procedure.

Once more, the past year yielded a wealth of developments in the area of criminal law and procedure. The author has endeavored to cull the most significant decisions and legislative enactments, with an eye toward the "takeaway" from a case rather than a discussion of settled principles.

Euthanasia or "sweet death" is a topic that has sparked numerous debates throughout history. In Albania, the right to life is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania. Regarding the individual's right to die in Albania, both forms of euthanasia, the passive and the active one, are considered criminal offenses and are punishable by law. The problem lies in the fact that such a definition is not found in the Albanian legislation, but such actions are considered as criminal by the interpretation of the law. In this topic we will study the perception of Albanians regarding euthanasia and whether the Albanian legislation should include this form of soft death or not. The protection of life in the country should take the dimensions of a sustainable protection. For this reason, in addition to the positive effects of improving life protection that derive from the application of the entirety of the various criminal justice programs and policies, also including the recent amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, a concrete and continuous protection should be provided in support of the right to life. I have always drawn a debate on this issue, which deals with the fundamental human right, with the most sacred right, that of life.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the law authority through criminal law politics states in the law concerning corruption. This study employed a normative juridical method with conceptual and statue approaches. This research collected the data from primary and secondary legal materials. These are to obtain a critical study of legal issues happening in society. The findings revealed that the criminal act of corruption does not provide a deterrent effect and is actually detrimental to the state. In addition, this study also found that the law concerning corruption increases the state's burden. This is because the prison sentence for corruptors is too light. The amount of money proceeds from corruption is not comparable to state spending in supporting the life of corrupt convicts in prison. The standard of penalty state in the law is too light compare to the result of corruption. Thus, it is necessary to reform the law on corruption due to the absence of proportionality in law and large losses to the state when dealing with corruption. The highest standard penalty for corruption only amounts to one billion Rupiah. In fact, many corruption cases reach to tens billions and even trillions rupiahs.