"O scurtă analiză comparativă a funcțiilor pedepsei. Perspective ale doctrinei penale și doctrinei ecleziastice"

Due to the impact of internationalization and globalization of foreign crimes is increasing. As a result, the field of criminal law that the state is expanding the scope of cooperation. The Republic of Korea's economic growth since 1990 while human and material exchanges with foreign countries grew, the influence due to the Republic of Korea from committing a crime criminals fleeing abroad is also increasing. The phenomenon of the internationalization of crime while faster terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking and international organized crime has also increased. And foreign citizens from increased crime carried a sentence in a foreign country, as well as citizens serving in foreign countries was also increased, as a result, the state of criminal law the principle of substantial part of the correction was inevitable. For international crimes, International Criminal Law traditionally does not conflict with the sovereignty of foreign countries within the area of criminal law applicable to a range of prescribed laws and regulations of the Penal Code is the coverage of place. Today, however, the effect on the results of a foreign court, enforcement, transfer of foreign criminal procedure and criminal judicial cooperation, criminal jurisdiction, including information on international transport prisoners are being expanded. The international criminal court, depending on the expansion of Korea's tendency to create Law of on Extradition and Criminal justice assistance law are implemented. The current July 2009, for criminal justice cooperation treaties with 26 countries was signed, a crime that can be transported into the country and 29 countries and signed treaties. And Romes Statute of the International Criminal Court, Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced CETS No.: 112 for a concrete realization, the International Criminal Court the jurisdiction to punish for criminal law and international transport prisoners and law enforcement is to establish. South Korea and China to increase exchanges between the real human situation, in March 2009 is currently detained in prison, the Republic of Korea, China National convicts 124 people, in May 2009 drafts are currently in prison in the Republic of Korea Chinese prisoners of 622 people, Therefore, the Republic of Korea is admitted to the prison of the Chinese, the most important foreign prisoners are accounted for. South Korea and China in the lively exchanges between the crimes committed by South Korea who was also raised to increase the possibility that prisoners will continue to grow as a result is expected. Prisoners housed in prisons in China are Korean language communication problems, such as treatment issues and are experiencing many difficulties in ensuring the basic rights. So, families of prisoners and prisoners in this area needs improvement, and for transporting prisoners and the results have a high interest in the treaty is being evaluated. Mongolia, South Korea by the practical need for these (Mongolia, 2007.5.28. Signed, August 23, 2008 effective) as second only to China, May 27, 2008 Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons was signed. And July 6, 2009 Different countries has been confined to prison for convicts sentenced to the punishment of his country's remaining period of the certificate in their home country to send the treaty were exchanged. The treaty for the rest of the prisoners by more than 1 year if they want the rest of the nation's prison and was able to. The of August 5, 2009 Republic of Korea and China becoming effective extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance treaty criminal and civil judicial cooperation and mutual legal assistance treaties with all the major treaties have been effective. In this study, increasing phenomenon of international criminal justice cooperation in accordance with acceptable international criminal law on the domestic level and the main topics discussed extradition system, on the International Criminal Court Rome Statute, the international system and the prisoners transferred the contents of the relevant international conventions and examine the status of agreement. And Law of on Extradition, International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the crime rate on the penalty law, Convicts transported International Law look at some of the key information, and should. Language: ko

In order to shed light on aspects of the use and overuse in the criminal law system, policy and law enforcement in the Netherlands, one can see several more or less dualistic developments. The major trend is clear: there is a strong call to emphasize the possibilities for criminal liability, criminal prosecution and sanctioning. The general approach is highly politically driven; politicians want to be ‘tough on crime’. For instance, as a reaction to terrorism, this tendency might be understood as being driven by developments in society. The call for a certain change in substantive criminal law and in the possibilities for investigating computer crimes is louder nowadays as well. This accentuated use of criminal law does not necessarily need to be characterized as ‘overuse’. Other aspects and changes tend more towards this qualification, especially where changes in criminal law politics are driven by other factors than what is necessary within a rational-pragmatic, evidence-based approach and policy.

Contents: Acknowledgements Introduction Steven D. Levitt and Thomas J. Miles PART I ECONOMIC APPROACH TO CRIME AND CRIMINAL LAW 1. Gary S. Becker (1968), 'Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach' 2. George J. Stigler (1970), 'The Optimum Enforcement of Laws' 3. A. Mitchell Polinsky and Steven Shavell (1975), 'The Optimal Tradeoff between the Probability and Magnitude of Fines' 4. Dan M. Kahan (1996), 'What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?' 5. Richard A. Posner (1985), 'An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law' 6. Steven Shavell (1985), 'Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent' 7. William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner (1975), 'The Private Enforcement of Law' 8. Frank H. Easterbrook (1983), 'Criminal Procedure as a Market System' PART II EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF THE ECONOMIC APPROACH 9. Franklin M. Fisher and Daniel Nagin (1978), 'On the Feasibility of Identifying the Crime Function in a Simultaneous Model of Crime Rates and Sanction Levels' 10. Steven D. Levitt (1996), 'The Effect of Prison Population Size on Crime Rates: Evidence from Prison Overcrowding Litigation' 11. Daniel Kessler and Steven D. Levitt (1999), 'Using Sentence Enhancements to Distinguish Between Deterrence and Incapacitation' 12. Edward L. Glaeser, Bruce Sacerdote and Jose A. Scheinkman (1996), 'Crime and Social Interactions' PART III ISSUES IN CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE A Gun Control 13. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig (2003), 'The Effects of the Brady Act on Gun Violence' 14. Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III (1999), 'Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapons Laws: A Case Study of Statistics, Standards of Proof, and Public Policy' B Capital Punishment 15. John J. Donohue and Justin Wolfers (2005), 'Uses and Abuses of Empirical Data in the Death Penalty Debate' C Drug Prohibition 16. Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel (1995), 'The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition' 17. Gary S. Becker, Kevin M. Murphy and Michael Grossman (2006), 'The Market for Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs' D Sentencing Policy 18. James M. Anderson, Jeffrey R. Kling and Kate Stith (1999), 'Measuring Interjudge Sentencing Disparity: Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' E Legalized Abortion and Crime 19. John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt (2001), 'The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime' Name Index

Against Prediction: Sentencing, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age

The article presents a special methodology of the sociology of criminal law aimed at establishing the parameters of public perception of the justice of punishments imposed by courts. It is generally believed that we are facing a crisis of excessive criminalization: our criminal law has become chaotic, unprincipled and overly expansive, while attempts to make criminal law orderly, principled and restrained are being made in almost every criminal law study, but the significance of these attempts for lawmaking today is negligible. The traditional direction of criminal policy research rests on the absence of a concept of reforming the criminal law; the latest theoretical models of such concepts were also not in demand by the legislator. It can be concluded that the main concept of modern state policy is precisely the absence of such a concept. The study of public knowledge showed that the public knows little about crime, as well as about the system of responding to it, including statistics: crime rate, recidivism rate and average sentences.

Comment on “Explaining the Standard of Proof in Criminal Law: A New Insight”

In the fields of criminology and criminal law probably everybody can agree with two propositions. First, throughout the world, criminal and delinquent acts are observed, recorded and counted. Rates of crime are interpreted as rather important indicators of a paramount social problem. Second, we can agree that throughout the world — and independent from cultural and political systems — criminal laws as well as criminal justice systems exist, displaying (to varying degrees) successful attempts to define and classify behavior or events as requiring punishment or some other societal reactions, be it treatment or education. Offenders or delinquents are processed through various stages of criminal justice. On the other hand, it is equally easy to conclude that despite rather uniform roles and functions law has been assigned in industrialized countries (Luhmann, 1972), there do not exist universal definitions of crime and delinquency. Agreement has not been reached on what is or what should be considered to be a criminal act or delinquent behavior (neglecting here rather meaningless abstract definitions such as: a crime is an act violating criminal law without justification or excuse). The answer to the question of whether there are universal crimes thus points to the rather trivial idea that law and norms, crime and deviance, represent relative concepts which vary along the dimensions of culture and nations as well as over time (Chang & Blazichek, 1986).

The article reveals doctrinal approaches to the definition of criminalization in criminal law science, as well as criteria for establishing criminal law prohibitions, taking into account the theory of causality of crime. The positions of leading scientists in the field of criminal law (I. Ya. Kozachenko, A. V. Naumov, Yu. I. Bytko, V. I. Plokhova, I. M. Kleimenov) regarding the nature of criminalization of criminal law are analyzed. The main focus of the article is on the social nature of the causes of increased criminal responsibility in shaping the criminal policy of the state. The article presents an analysis of the changes in the criminal law in 2025, reflecting the social factor of criminalization in the process of criminal law rulemaking. The current data on the crime rate in the Russian Federation are presented, which allow us to judge the effectiveness and necessity of the introduced changes in criminal legislation, in terms of increased responsibility.

Crime is part of the form of human behavior and will continue to develop following the dynamics of human life and civilization. There’s no exception that the Covid-19 pandemic that hit the world also had an impact on Indonesia. The impact is not only in the sphere of human health but also in the sphere of social life, including changes in human habits and behavior. Various Indonesian government policies to reduce the spread of Covid-19, such as restrictions on activities outside the home, to prisoner assimilation policies have also influenced changes in human behavior and the economic condition of the community which can be a potential change in the form and rate of crime. Crime will not be separated from the problem of criminal law and punishment, especially modern criminal law that is oriented to the perpetrator and the deed (daad-dader straafrecht) or also known as penal individualization. One of the characteristics of penal individualization is that the crime must be adapted to the characteristics and conditions of the perpetrator, which is elaborated with the view of the ecology school in criminology, a person’s evil deeds are influenced by the environment of the perpetrator (external factors). It becomes a question, is the pandemic condition a factor of crime, or is it a reason for aggravating or mitigating crime for criminals? To answer this question, the author uses a juridical/normative research approach, and it is found that the Covid-19 pandemic as a national disaster can become a mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstances, in the form of Judicial Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances.
 Keywords: Covid-19, punishment, Indonesia, criminal law, mitigating-aggravating penal

The article determines the nature of the correlation of extortion of unlawful benefits with related offences, contained almost in other sections of the special part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.The Criminal Code of Ukraine uses the term «extortion» quite often. In this regard, and a law, and researcher in criminal law, the question is how to apply the criminal law when in fact committed includes with the objective of the requirement to pass something under threat in case the transfer of something applied to the victim negative or other persons (not desirable) for the last act. In particular, noted that in the criminal law of Ukraine all provisions (norms) that somehow establish responsibility for extortion, can be divided into the following groups: 1) Association rules on extortion from the general rule under Art. 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the specific rules provided for in Art. Art. 159-1, 262, 308, 312, 313, 357, 410 Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2) a group of rules on extortion undue advantage as part of the so-called corruption crimes: art. Art. 354, 368, 368-3, 368-4, 369-2 Criminal Code of Ukraine, 3) rules containing offenses, which the legislator certainly not have signs demanding: Art. Art. 206 and 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; 4) the rate of crime in which acts of extortion qualified by characterizing socially dangerous consequences of another crime: art. 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In determining the ratio between the group rules on extortion undue advantage of extortion and general, should take into account the fact that the content threats in situation of extortion undue advantage should cover the fact that the negative consequences for the victim are always opportunities associated with special subject offense caused by his status or official or a person who provides public services. The same applies to the offense under Art. 369-2 Criminal Code of Ukraine, but in this case the special status of the perpetrator must be related to the ability to influence another person - a person authorized to perform state functions. As a conclusion it seems necessary to note that the distinction between the respective encroachments can be conducted only on the grounds specified through system of interpretation of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The term «extortion» used by the legislator in a special part in the 16 articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The value of this time is very different. Five articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establish responsibility for their own extortion undue advantage: Art. Art. 354, 368, 368-3, 368-4, 369-2 Criminal Code of Ukraine, using the turn «combined with extortion undue (any) benefit». One rule under Art. 189 «Extortion» is actually a general rule for all kinds of extortion, responsibility for which the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The crimes under Art. Art. 159-1, 262, 308, 312, 313, 357, 410 Criminal Code of Ukraine are reflected in the so-called special regulations.

The paper deals with the issue of suicide and assisted suicide, especially its ethical, criminal law and canon law evaluation. In the first chapter, the author explains what needs to be perceived under these terms and how they differ from euthanasia, offers current statistics on suicides in the Slovak Republic and discusses basic types of suicides, evaluates the issue of the right to life from an ethical point of view and criticizes the concept of the “right to death”. He concludes that the possible legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia would have widespread negative consequences. The second chapter of the paper is based on the constitutional guarantees of the right to life, which is also supported by the international obligations of the Slovak Republic in this area. Subsequently, it offers a criminal analysis of suicide and assisted suicide in the Slovak legal system. In the last, third chapter, the author finally discusses the issue from the perspective of the doctrine, law and practice of the Catholic Church.

Restorative justice is a philosophical framework that offers a different perspective on crime and criminal justice. It presents a new way of thinking about crime and how to respond to it. In other words, restorative justice is a process by which the parties involved decide how to address the consequences of a specific crime. Furthermore, restorative justice seeks to repair what has been violated. It is a form of justice (pertaining to criminal matters) based on "reparation," meaning that efforts should be made to repair the severe impacts of the crime and the resulting damages, either completely or symbolically. Since crime wounds the conscience of society, the justice system aims to mend the damages caused, and the parties are allowed to participate in this process. Retributive justice, which focuses on the crime, and rehabilitative justice, which focuses on the offender, are both known as the classic or traditional models of criminal justice. In recent decades, they have faced various criticisms regarding their efficiency and performance. The traditional (classic) criminal justice system faces significant limitations and challenges, increasing the demand for its reform and change. Both nationally and internationally, this system encounters fundamental criticisms. Some criminologists and jurists have sought to replace the classic criminal justice system, introducing a new system called "restorative justice" into the fields of criminology and criminal law. Restorative justice is a new and yet ancient and deep-rooted model of criminal justice that has been revitalized since the 1970s and 1980s. According to scholars, the inclination towards restorative justice in recent decades is due to the criminal justice system's inability to control delinquency through both retribution and rehabilitation, highlighted by the sudden and regrettable increase in crime rates. This raised fundamental questions about the traditional criminal justice system's and governments' capacity to control delinquency. Moreover, government officials have realized that crime control extends beyond the capabilities of the state in two significant and distinct ways: 1) The capacity of state criminal justice institutions is severely limited, and 2) there are control mechanisms that operate outside state boundaries and are somewhat independent of state policies. These challenges have led to the creation and development of alternative methods and a redefinition of the state's role in criminal justice. Critics believe that retributive criminal justice has neglected or at least not given adequate roles to the victim, the offender, and society in favor of public authority through criminal laws. This research employs an analytical-descriptive methodology, is of an applied nature, and utilizes laws, regulations, and library resources, also having an educational aspect. The results indicate the necessity of replacing classic criminal justice with restorative justice by examining the mechanisms related to the administration of justice by relevant national and international institutions, particularly the United Nations, and national efforts in most countries. According to its proponents, restorative justice can resolve the conflict arising from the crime, as well as the resulting hostility, tension, and conflict between the victim and the offender within the community framework through mediation, negotiation, collective reconciliation, and various methods of repair and restoration.

Criminal punishment has traditionally been the most elementary and obvious expression of the state's sovereign power. As evidenced by the ready appeal to punishment in the international community as well as in the European Union, the institution of punishment also provides an important medium for expressing the majesty of new super-entities as well as of traditional states. One would expect, therefore, that the theory of punishment and of criminal law would be high on the agendas of those interested in the philosophical foundations of the state. Yet in contemporary writing on political theory, particularly in English, neither criminal law nor criminal procedure receives much attention. (1) The converse is also true: those writing on criminal theory rarely see the connection between their internal disputes--say, about victims' rights and impossible attempts--and the broader issues, not only of political but of philosophy. In this essay I assess the way in which certain basic positions about the nature of state and society work themselves out in criminal law. In the absence of a developed literature on political and criminal theory, most of these arguments will be novel attempts to lay the groundwork for further discussion. I begin by projecting implications for criminal law from specific theories, known by the conventional labels of libertarian, liberal, communitarian, and perfectionist approaches to using criminal sanctions. Then I turn to the problem of legitimacy in both domestic and international criminal law. The distinction between political and theory is critical to the argument. Some writers today use the term moral so broadly that their usage obfuscates the important distinction between the state's acting legitimately and individuals acting morally. (2) The political addresses the power and prerogatives of state officials--that is, of human beings cast into a particular role of enforcing criminal prohibitions. The focuses primarily on the lives of individuals, both in their personal flourishing and in their relationships with other individuals. An example of the kind of the argument I seek to avoid is the conventional claim about desert. The argument goes like this. Some people--really bad people like Adolph Eichmann or Slobodan Milosevic--deserve to be punished. Because they a certain consequence, it follows that the state is justified in delivering it. This is a non sequitur. An extreme version of the non sequitur is found in the retributive theory of Michael Moore who argued that because individuals feel guilty, they should be punished according to their guilt. (3) Missing are the critical premises first that it is the business of the state rather than of God (or the victim or the victim's family) to punish the offender, and second that the offender's feelings of guilt are a reliable indicator of that which should be punished and of the appropriate degree of punishment. (4) The popular language of just deserts reveals the depth of our confusion. Just because the offender might punishment, it does not follow--without an appropriate theory of state power--that the state should assess the degree of deserved punishment and use its power to impose it on the offender. The quick assumption that the state is entitled to punish offenders who deserve it is one of the unfortunate banalities of criminal law in our time. The logical gap between the offender's desert and someone's or some entity's authority is well understood in Jewish law and in other religious legal systems. Genesis 9:6 tells us that whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. This is comparable to claims about desert. The killer may to die but it does not follow that the state is entitled to kill him. We should think about this conceptual divide as the distinction between and political theory. The specifies what people deserve. …

A series of studies have explored the relationship between crime rates and socioeconomic factors. Few researchers, however, have made an empirical analysis of the crime rate in China over the past 30 years. In terms of the data spanning 30 years involving five probable factors: Gross Domestic Product, Consumer Price Index, employment rate, divorce rate and educational rate, I find that the change in crime rates is mainly correlated with the change in education level and unemployment rate in Chinese mainland and Hong Kong. But the growth of the gross domestic product, which is a macroeconomic indicator, may not be as important as one might think in the change in crime rate. In particular, I also look at the impact of major events on crime rates -- the return of Hong Kong and the promulgation of the Criminal Law Amendment in 1997 and found that the Criminal Law Amendment had a positive impact on the crime rate in the Chinese mainland. This paper conducts an empirical modelling analysis of panel data from 1990 to 2020 in Chines mainland and Hong Kong from different social systems, measures the impact of different factors on the crime rate, and tries to find the most effective way to reduce the crime rate for China. Through the analysis, it can be found that in the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong, the most effective way to reduce the crime rate is not to develop the economy but to improve the overall level of education.

The origins of criminology as a separate and independent field of scientific research are usually linked to the emergence of the so called positive school of criminology in the second half of the nineteenth century and with the name of its leading representative Cesare Lombroso. Undoubtedly since that time criminological thought went through a long and substantial evolution which produced a variety of new concepts and theories. As a result of this one could assume that contemporary criminology has very little in common with the ideas of its founders. Despite this, there is growing conviction in the literature that the heritage of Lombroso and Italian positivism still influences significantly contemporary criminological theory. Of course, the essence of this influence lies not in the details of Lombroso’s anthropological ideas which were proven wrong long ago, but in certain quetions asked by him and his school and methods adopted to answer them. Those questions and methods were strictly connected with and resulted from the particular ideas about human society and social world, as well as with the ideas regarding the role, functions and methods of scientific research which prevailed in the social sciences in the second half of the previous century which are commonly referred to as positivism. It justifies the designation as positivist criminology of almost all criminological thought and research since the times of Lombroso up to the late 1950’s. Positivist criminology is ditinguished first of all by its naturalism, e.g. an assumption that all methodological principles developed in sciences apply equally to social sciences which do not possess any substantial methodical peculiarities. It means also that the main task of scientific research is to discover and formulate causal laws and the assumption of objectivity and value neutrality of science and the scientist. The basic question of such criminology based on the deterministic concept of social world and human behaviour was an etiological one: why do certain people commit crimes while others don’t? It means that the main task of positivist criminology is the search for the causes of crime. Another important feature of positivist criminology is the consensual model of the social order it usually assumes. Such a model implies that the entire social order and the very existence of human society result from the sharing of certain values and norms by the large majority of the members of such society. According to this view, also, criminal law represents an example of such consensus and its norms are subject to widespread acceptance. Criminals represent some unique category of misfits or outsiders somehow different from all other „normal” people, a category which refuses to submit to social consensus. A final result of this way of thinking leads to the conclusion that the explanation of a crime and finding its causes requires concentration on the individual who behaves criminally. Because of this, positivist criminology is a science having as its subject the criminal and his behaviour. Pure accumulation of knowledge was never the sole purpose of criminological research. Positivist criminology tried always to be also an applied science, providing scientific grounds for lawmaking and law enforcement. Results of criminological research, data about the criminal and his behaviour should help to change him: rehabilitate, resocialize, correct or heal. In other words, the main purpose of positivist criminology was to provide scientific methods of bringing known misfits and outsiders back the social consensus they left. This feature of positivist criminology is usually referred to in literature as correctionalism. The above reconstruction of the main features of positivist criminology probably corresponds better to European criminology, which was in fact for many years dominated by the ,,lombrosian myth”. One can doubt however whether American criminology may also be described in such terms. The problem is that, because of its clear sociological orientation, American criminology is regarded rather as a heritage of A. Quetelet, A. Guerry or E. Durkheim and not of Lombroso. Usually it perceived crime as a social phenomenon and not as an individual pathology. But it is equally true that such classical American theories of crime causation as the differential association theory or anomie theory focus their attention on the individual criminal as well. What distinguishes those theories from the European tradition is the conviction that the criminal and his special features are products of an environment. However, in both cases criminals are treated as somehow a different kind of people. All this has important practical implications. The individual approach to crime casuation implies that the proper aim of any correctional influences is the criminal himself. The sociological approach claims that there is also no sense in correcting or changing the criminal unless we do something about the environment which produced him. The natural consequence of such an approach is the preference for social reform and social policy over criminal law as instruments of fighting the crime problem. The former is assigned only a secondary role. This is probably one of the main reasons for a certain uneasiness and mistrust towards the sociological approach which may be observed criminologists with a legal background; it is considered too abstract and detached from the everyday problems of the criminal justice system as well as too difficult and complicated to implement. Two new criminological currents emerged during last thirty years which remain in opposition towards positivism. The first one, called antinaturalistic criminology, was born during the sixties. It rejected the positivist concept of social science, asked new and different questions and tried to answer them using different methods. The decisive role in launching this new approach was played by the labelling approach, Its main contribution constituted rejection of the old etiological question and its substitution with the „reactive” one, a question regarding origins and development of the societal reaction to criminal or dewiant behaviour. This meant also an abandonment of positivist methodology of searching for casual laws and a turn towards the methods of humanistic sociology, including understanding, empathy and other similar qualitative methods. According to this trend the main task of the criminological enterprise is to create a sociology law and other forms of social control. Antinaturalistic criminology also adopted an unequivocally pluralistic model of society. Crime and deviance ceased to be perceived as something necessarily pathological. Instead, an attempt was undertaken to treat those phenomena as the result of natural diversity of human beings. To support this stance the labelling approach provided a variety of research on deviant subcultures conducted from what may be called ,,ethnographic positions”, which also denounced the negative effects of punitive social control. The final result was growing scepticism towards the agencies of official social control and such ideas as for example radical nonintervention. The next development can be attributed to radical and critical criminology. These trends assume that social conflict is the main feature of social order and try to understand criminal law and the criminal justice system as the result and manifestation of such conflict. This means that criminalisation processes, e.g. lawmaking and law enforcement, should be explained primarily in terms of political and economic power. Certain groups, because of their access to power, are able to enforce their own values and norms against the will of other groups which may not share them. All this means an unequivocally negative evaluation of the mechanism of social control in contemporary societies which are considered oppressive and unjust. An alternative vision of the society is proposed, a society where facts of human diversity are not subject to the power to criminalize. The way such vision should be implemented are very different and may be placed on the broad continuum from the orthodox Marxism-Leninism and belief in ideal socialism to the humanistic utopias of contemporary abolitionists. Such visions are accompanied by very strong opposition to traditional, mainstream criminology which is accused of being totally and uncritically apologetic and subservient towards the state and institutions of power. According to this view, positivist criminology under the disguise of scientific neutrality and objectivity, in fact legitimizes the existing political and moral order and serves the interests of the privileged groups in society. As a result a new attitude of moral and political commitment is proposed. Science, according to these postulates should be definitely partisan. Such an attitude should break the monopoly of positivist criminology in creating social consciousness about crime and deviance and show the broad audience that alternative are possible. In sum, one can say that the main subject of interest for traditional, positivist criminology constituted always the criminal and that the main problem was to root out his criminal propensities. For antinaturalistic criminology the main problem is the system of social control which requires fundamental change. During the seventies another criminological current emerged, known as neoclassicism, which criticized traditional, positivist criminology from quite different angles. This current, which remains primarily an American phenomenon, constitutes, first of all, opposition against the traditional, in the United States, domination of the sociological approach to the crime problem. Representatives of neoclassical criminology are troubled first of all by the above mentioned unclear practical implications of these theories for the criminal justice system. They are, namely, very difficult to translate into the language of policy actions. Moreover, proposed remedies against crime usually remain beyond the reach of traditional measures which the criminal justice system has at its disposal. As a result the turn towards the tradition of the European classical school of criminal law is proposed and enriched by recent achievements of behavioristic psychology and the economic theory of bohaviour. The essence of this approach constitutes the concept of free will and the assumption that criminals are quite normal human individuals making only false decisions. The fact that human behaviour is always guided by the desire to maximize gains and minimize loses makes this behaviour susceptible to external manipulation. The easiest way to influence human decisions is to create a high enough barrier of costs which should eliminate undesired decisions. Criminal law should play a key role in creating such a barrier and preventing criminal behaviour. Moreover, the barrier of costs provided by criminal law constitutes practically the only factor easily accessible to manipulation by any democratic and liberal government. Other ways of influencing crime rates are usually too costly or too difficult to implement. The basic task of criminology is to provide the necessary empirical data on the functioning of criminal law and the criminal justice system, which should be than used to formulate the most effective policies. All three criminological currents discussed above were usually treated as mutually exclusive and competitive paradigms. Today, when the heat of the discussions of the sixties and seventies diminished, there is a good chance to have a less emotional analysis of recent developments in criminology. Probably it will be possible now to come to the conclusion that the emergence during last 150 years of the three distinct paradigms in theoretical criminology may be comprehended not only in terms of consecutive scientific revolutions. Probably it may be also interpreted as the evolutionary process of the cumulation of knowledge about crime. During this process points of view and focuses’ changed as every paradigm considered different aspects of criminal phenomena as being most important and worth of researching. But all three may be considered, at least to a certain extent, complementary ones.