Principle Of Criminal Responsibility Research Articles

Approach to Functionalization of Criminal Law in Risk Society

Criminal law in risk society shows the trend of functional development. The principle of criminal responsibility which is the cornerstone of the justification of punishment has broken through its dysfunction and created the theory of crime prevention, which has effectively solved the conflict between the principle of criminal responsibility and the purpose of punishment in traditional criminal law theory. Legal interest which is the core of criminal law has deviated from its original intention because of the increasingly broad scope of subsumtion. Therefore, it is the evitable way for legal interest to break through the dysfunction to maintain the principle of legal interest.

The Imposition of Sanctions that Govern Pancasila for Juvenille Deliquency

This study aims to look at the imposition of sanctions that govern Pancasila for juvenille deliquency. This study uses a historical approach on the grounds that there are changes and developments in the meaning and purpose of punishment from a view that was originally oriented towards traditional retributive views that saw criminal sanctions as punitive towards a more human or humanist conception of punishment by emphasizing the element of corrective action. crimes, namely children and a comparative juridical approach that is focused on the formulation of alternatives to child criminal sanctions in several KUHPs of foreign countries. The results showed that the strategy of developing sanctions against children who committed crimes had been carried out through the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Child Criminal Justice System three principles of punishment recognized in UUSPPA, namely the principle of criminal responsibility, the principle of the best interes of the child and the ultimum principle remidium. The three principles of punishment are also the basis of the formation of UUSPPA so that two punitive conditions apply for children in conflict with the law, namely the terms of absolute punishment and the conditions for relative punishment. The imposition of sanctions that affect the Pancasila for children who commit criminal acts in the form of verbal sanctions is considered more humanistic because with children's verbal sanctions avoid negative stigma that can affect the future of the child.

Brief of Amicus Curiae 290 Criminal Law and Mental Health Law Professors in Support of Petitioner's Request for Reversal and Remand, Kahler V. Kansas, 18-6135 (U.S. June 6, 2019)

Amici curiae are a group of philosophically and politically diverse law school professors and scholars in the fields of criminal law and mental health from a variety of disciplines who have been teaching and writing about the insanity defense and related issues throughout their careers. They include the authors of leading criminal law and mental health law treatises and casebooks and numerous important scholarly books and articles. Amici believe this case raises important questions about principles of criminal responsibility, the integral role of the insanity defense in Anglo-American law, and the inadequacy of the “mens rea alternative” to the traditional affirmative defense. Their teaching and research on the subject have given them a unique appreciation of the historical and doctrinal significance of the defense of legal insanity.

Международные преступления и законодательство Нидерландов: стратегия имплементации

Introduction. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court proved to be an important factor that stimulated a radical reform of national laws relating to the prosecution of international crimes. It allowed, on one hand, to considerably improve the mechanism for suppressing most serious violations of human rights the prosecution of which constituted a legitimate interest of both individual States and the international community as a whole, and on the other hand, to adequately implement the obligations of States under the Rome Statute. The Member States of the European Union have an effective experience in ensuring compliance of the national laws with the international treaty provisions concerning genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Among them, the implementation model chosen by the Netherlands deserves particular scrutiny. The authors analyze the all-encompassing nature of this model with the focus on the criminalization of the international crimes, the regulation of matters relating to the criminal jurisdiction, the definition of the general principles of criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the interrelationship between the Law on International Crimes and other similar legal acts. Materials and methods . Materials used for the analysis include international documents, decisions of international judicial bodies, national legislation and judicial practice of Netherlands and other states, as well as the doctrinal positions of various authors. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods. Research results. The analysis of the substantive implementation of the Rome Statute by individual EU member states, in particular with the example of the national legislation of the Netherlands, has shown that the criminalization of international crimes at the national level makes a significant contribution to the fight against personal impunity for international crimes pertaining to jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Discussion and conclusions . The national legislation of the Netherlands, mainly the International Crimes Act is an attempt to create a legal regime that prevents impunity for perpetrators of international crimes, and also reaffirms that the norms of the Rome Statute are voluminous and fully implemented that allows the Netherlands to carry on an independent prosecution of defendants, excluding the possibility to transfer the case to the ICC.

‘The Very Foundations of Any System of Criminal Justice’: Criminal Responsibility in the Australian Model Criminal Code

The Model Criminal Code (MCC) was intended to be a Code for all Australian jurisdictions. It represents a high point of faith in the value and possibility of systematising, rationalising and modernising criminal law. The core of the MCC is Chapter 2, the ‘general principles of criminal responsibility’, which outlines the ‘physical’ and ‘fault’ elements of criminal offences, and defines concepts such as recklessness. This paper assesses the MCC as a criminal law reform project and explores questions of how the MCC came into being, and why it took shape in certain ways at a particular point in time. The paper tackles these questions from two different perspectives—‘external’ and ‘internal’ (looking at the MCC from the ‘outside’ and the ‘inside’). I make two main arguments. First, I argue that, driven by a ‘top down’ law reform process, the MCC came into being at a time when changes in crime and criminal justice were occurring, and that it may be understood as an attempt to achieve stability in a time of change. Second, I argue that the significance of the principles of criminal responsibility, which formed the central pivot of the MCC, lies on the conceptual level—in relation to the language through which the criminal law is thought about, organised and reformed.

Rethinking about fundamental principles of criminal law -free will and principle of criminal responsibility (Schuldprinzip)-

Rethinking about fundamental principles of criminal law -free will and principle of criminal responsibility (Schuldprinzip)-

Reviewing the General Principles of Criminal Responsibility in the Model Criminal Code: A Submission to the National Criminal Law Reform Committee

The National Criminal Law Reform Committee (formerly the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee) is currently conducting a review of Chapter 2 of the Model Criminal Code, which governs general principles of criminal responsibility. The Committee is a standing body that provides advice on criminal law issues to the Standing Council on Law and Justice, and which comprises representatives from a range of Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities. The review builds on consultations conducted in 2008-09, which sought comments on the general effectiveness of Chapter 2. The Committee is now seeking to develop an updated set of areas for possible reform in relation to Chapter 2. Regular reviews of the Model Criminal Code are important to ensure that it remains modern and relevant.

Risky Business: Developmental Neuroscience and the Culpability of Young Killers

Children and young people who kill do not always act with the mental acuity expected of someone who has reached full maturity, yet when they are charged with murder or manslaughter they are often tried as adults. This contradicts the basic principle of criminal responsibility that criminalisation is based upon moral blameworthiness. A conviction for murder requires at least a conscious appreciation of a real risk of death. Recent research by developmental neuroscientists shows that adolescence is a developmental stage and that the adolescent brain is not capable of the same level of reasoning expected in the average adult. This article suggests that the criminal justice system can adapt to these recent advances in knowledge via specific defences of a diminished capacity class, or by allowing evidence of general adolescent brain development to support defence arguments that a young accused did not form the mens rea required for murder.

Cracking the <i>Criminal Code</i>: Time for Some Changes

Australian federal and territorial criminal jurisprudence changed radically with the enactment of Chapter 2 - General principles of criminal responsibility. The general principles have now been in force for 8 years. As appellate caselaw accumulates, early signs of stress in the structure of Chapter 2 are apparent. If the general principles are to continue to provide a guide to legislatures and courts, when encoding and decoding legislation, continuing review of their provisions will be necessary. This paper discusses three related problems in the law of mistake and criminal responsibility and an unrelated problem about ulterior intentions. It proposes a morally coherent reformulation of the general principles in those areas. Detailed proposals for reform are included in an appendix to the paper. These include a defence of reasonable mistake of law; elimination of the existing general defence of claim of right and an enlargement of the vocabulary of fault elements to include ulterior intentions and departures from statutory standards of honest or decent or reasonable conduct. These arguments for revision of Chapter 2 are presented in pursuit of a larger objective. Chapter 2 was originally formulated as a Model Criminal Code in the hope or expectation that it would provide a centripetal, unifying influence on the diversity and confusion of state and territorial criminal laws. That objective is unlikely to be achieved unless Chapter 2 is taken to be of central concern in Australian criminal law scholarship, comparable with the centrality of the Model Penal Code in US criminal law. This is a revised version of a paper originally delivered at the Commonwealth Attorney General's Criminal Justice Forum on September 29, 2008.

Healthcare and other social aspects of genetics: a judicial perspective

This paper discusses several scientific developments relating to genetic science, including DNA technology; gene therapy; cloning; stem cell research; pharmocogenetics; reproductive technology; and genetically modified organisms used in agriculture and environmental protection. It also identifies various social, ethical and legal issues relating to these developments, including genetic privacy; genetic discrimination in employment and insurance; gene doping in sports; commercialisation of products developed from genetic information; confidentiality, disclosure and other liability issues for physicians; rights and responsibilities regarding donated reproductive material; environmental and health concerns; and principles of criminal responsibility. It explores these issues in order to highlight both the fact that the benefits of scientific progress inevitably raise difficult and complex social problems, and society's need to consider, discuss, and pursue solutions to these problems before they become overwhelming.

Causality, a Separate Element of the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility as Expressed in Article 28 Rome Statute?

The jurisprudence of the ICTY and the ICTR has denied this question, but accepts causality as a basic principle of criminal responsibility. Since the relevant articles in the Statute of the ICTY (Article 7(3)) and the ICTR (Article 6(3)), differ from Article 28 of the Rome Statute, which demands “a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly,” a comparative study is desirable. It has to include the question, whether this failure overlaps with the omission “to take all necessary or reasonable measures within his or her power,” and whether the last alternative “failed […] to submit,” requires at all a causal nexus.

The principles of criminal responsibility in Poland*

The principles of criminal responsibility in Poland*