Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Analisi preferenze criminali »

AbstrakAbortion practice could be noted as hidden phenomenon by its enigmatic andmore over is layered by the actor, community also government. Obstructionitself is under bearing of legal system, social norms, culture, religion thoseliving in the people lifes. Under her research the author sets up reconfimationthat both Islamic Law and Health Law have same dogma thatabortion practice is criminal conduct. But under specific circumstanceabortion possibly will be achieved. That might is ought to refers to medicalethic as if then in pratice should not worse impact to the woman whomraped. Under Islamic Law preference is also ought to refers to stipulatedsyar'i.

2012-2013
Lo scopo della presente ricerca è stato quello di individuare le differenze relative alla propensione cooperativa ed a quella punitiva tra un campione di studenti, uno di camorristi ed uno di detenuti comuni. A tal fine sono stati realizzati due esperimenti, composti da due diversi disegni, rappresentati rispettivamente dal classico gioco del Dilemma del Prigioniero (PD) e da un Dilemma del Prigioniero con punizione di un terzo (TP-PD). I camorristi nel PD hanno manifestato una propensione cooperativa nettamente superiore a quella degli studenti ed a quella dei detenuti comuni, mentre nel TP-PD i due campioni di criminali hanno evidenziato un livello sostanzialmente identico di cooperazione, anche se rispetto alla minaccia di subire la sanzione hanno reagito in maniera opposta (i camorristi hanno ridotto il livello di cooperazione rispetto al PD mentre i comuni hanno fatto registrare un incremento). Gli studenti, al pari dei camorristi, nel TP-PD hanno cooperato meno rispetto a quanto abbiano deciso di fare nel Dilemma del Prigioniero. Inoltre, sia i camorristi che i detenuti comuni nel TP-PD hanno evidenziato una forte propensione punitiva (maggiore di quella rilevatasi negli studenti), anche se la rispettiva modalità di applicazione si è mostrata diversa. Inoltre ai tre campioni sono stati somministrati una serie di quesiti, contenuti in un apposito questionario, al fine di verificare le affinità/divergenze tra le decisioni concretamente assunte nel gioco e le risposte fornite alle domande formulate.[a cura dell'autore]
XII ciclo n.s.

Many jurisdictions define a special procedural regime for people facing “criminal” charges; hence, whether a case is considered “civil” or “criminal” can have important consequences for access to a wide array of procedural rights. Conventionally, the distinction between “civil” and “criminal” law is drawn by reference to whether the law in question is intended to be punitive. This chapter explores an alternative approach. Drawing upon the capabilities approach literature, this chapter develops an account of the allocation of procedural rights on the basis of whether the law in question has the potential to impair effective access to central capability. The appeal of the capabilities approach is contrasted to Kolber’s proposal to index punishment by reference to subjective utility or preference. Although appeal to capabilities is novel in this context, well-known features of due process analysis in American constitutional law are broadly consistent with a capabilities-based approach to rights allocation.

Abstract This chapter discusses the common law hearsay prohibition and its modern statutory incarnation under the CJA 2003. The ‘rule against hearsay’ is an iconic feature of common law evidence. It can be conceptualized as the flipside of the principle of orality: a preference for first-hand oral testimony is simultaneously a presumption against the receipt of second-hand, out of court, reported hearsay. However, the hearsay prohibition was never absolute at common law: some out-of-court speech or writing is (arguably) not hearsay, whilst much that is indisputably hearsay is nonetheless admissible via numerous doctrinal exceptions to the prohibition. The reformed statutory framework maintains a bespoke set of admissibility doctrines for hearsay evidence but also extends the common law’s partially compensatory inclusionary policy (and literally ‘preserves’ key common law exceptions, via CJA 2003, s.118). The chapter canvasses explanatory rationales for excluding hearsay evidence. Like many other common law evidentiary doctrines, hearsay exclusion can be justified on epistemic and/or non-epistemic grounds. Second-hand information may be unreliable and difficult to test. It may also be unfair to adduce it against a party who is denied the opportunity to ‘confront’ or challenge an accuser directly. ECHR Art 6(3)(d) articulates a right to witness examination as one component of the (human) right to a fair trial. Conversely, hearsay is often reliable and sometimes the best available evidence. Hearsay doctrine must balance these conflicting considerations. Analysis begins with the concept and definition of the hearsay prohibition. Conceptual confusion has caused much difficulty in the past, especially in relation to ‘implied assertions’, and the reformed law is not entirely free of it. The CJA 2003 presents a logical, partly codified structure for regulating hearsay evidence with principal admissibility gateways covering first-hand oral hearsay from ‘absent witnesses’ (s.116), ‘business etc.’ documents (s.117), and a residual ‘safety valve’ inclusionary discretion (s.114(1)(d)). There is extensive interpretational jurisprudence. The chapter concludes by evaluating what remains of the old common law doctrines, reasserting normative first principles (partly enshrined in human rights law), and noting a procedural shift towards judicial warnings (‘forensic reasoning rules’) in preference to blanket exclusion as a more nuanced way of addressing the probative infirmities of hearsay evidence.

Chapter 4 analyses religious views of justice in late medieval Siena through the analysis of the sermons of the Dominican Ambrogio Sansedoni and the Franciscan Bindo Scremi. It evaluates the influence of the theology of atonement (as proposed by Anselm of Canterbury) on Sienese pastoral literature, and it concludes that sermons aimed at the laypeople in communal Italy tended to favour the more traditional redemption theology. The main effect of this preference for religious conceptions of divine and human justice was that of conceiving of it as a spectrum going from strict retribution to complete forgiveness, but with a requirement to favour the latter over the former. Religious discourses which compared divine and human justice, moreover, are explored as loci in which criticism, albeit veiled, of local reforms of criminal justice could be expressed.

This chapter discusses the role of prosecutorial power in state imprisonment policy. The analysis contrasts the personal preferences of prosecutors for severe punishment as a state policy (that is why they chose to become prosecutors) with the priority of prosecutors to obtain prison terms as a measure of their adversarial effectiveness, the vice that may distort local criminal justice policy. The major ambition of reform in prosecution is to moderate the power as well as the desire to consider incarceration as a measure of effectiveness in public prosecution.

There is no shortage of scholarly and other research on the reciprocal relationship that inequality bears to crime, victimisation and contact with the criminal justice system, both in the specific United States context and beyond. Often, however, inequality has been studied in conjunction with only one of the three phenomena at issue, despite the intersections that arguably obtain between them–and, indeed, between their respective connections with inequality itself. There are, moreover, forms of inequality that have received far less attention in pertinent research than their prevalence and broader significance would appear to merit. The purpose of this chapter is dual: first, to identify ways in which inequality’s linkages to crime, victimisation and criminal justice may relate to one another; and second, to highlight the need for a greater focus than has been placed heretofore on the role of institutionalised inequality of access to the political process, particularly as this works to bias criminal justice policy-making towards the preferences of financially motivated state lobbying groups at the expense of disadvantaged racial minorities. In so doing, the chapter singles out for analysis the US case and, more specifically, engages with key extant explanations of the staggering rise in the use of imprisonment in the country since the 1970s.