Global ETD Search

1	A comparative examination of the extent to which the South African and the English legal systems recognize the defence of provocation in homicide cases Ackermann, Leon Keith 23 November 2021 (has links) On charges of murder or assault, it often appears that the accused's aggression was immediately preceded by provocative behaviour e.g. taunts or insults by the victim which induced anger or rage in the accused and which gave rise to his aggression. The present study aims to address the question whether, in South African law, a defence is available to an accused in such cases. Since the issue of provocation in South African law usually arises in homicide cases, this study will be restricted to such cases. It will be shown that, during the past couple of decades, the South African law relating to provocation has undergone significant development. In 1925, the Appellate Division declared s 141 of the Native Territories Penal Code to be an accurate reflection of the South African law relating to provocation. In terms of this section, provocation could operate as a partial defence on a charge of murder: where an accused successfully raised the defence he would be convicted of culpable homicide. Recently, however, it has become clear that provocation may operate as a complete defence, resulting in an accused leaving the court as a free person. It will be argued that the above development reflects a general shift in our law, starting in the 1950's, from a policy-based to a principle-based approach to criminal liability. Aggravating circumstances South Africa
2	Assessing the issue of arbitrariness in capital sentencing in North Carolina: Are the effects of legally relevant variables racially invariant? Earl, Judith Kavanaugh 01 June 2005 (has links) This study analyzed case and sentencing data from 632 capital cases involving Black and White defendants and victims, processed in North Carolina from May 1990 through December 2002. Logistic regression analysis of all cases and race-specific data allowed assessment of the variable effects of jury acceptance of statutory aggravating and mitigating factors on capital sentencing outcomes (death versus life). The purpose was to evaluate the role race plays in shaping jury use of legally defined factors in capital sentencing. Significant variance in the effect of jury acceptance of aggravators was observed between Black and White defendants. Black defendants pay a higher premium in terms of the risk of a death sentence than do White defendants whose crimes are comparably aggravated. There was no overall disparity in the effect of jury acceptance of mitigatory factors observed, although certain mitigators reduced the risk of a death sentence significantly more for Black or White. Overall, the aggravators had a statistically significantly stronger effect on sentencing outcomes than did the mitigators, regardless of race, and on cases involving Black defendants, regardless of victim race. Racial invariance was not shown. Death penalty Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances Race discrimination Jury American Studies Arts and Humanities
3	The impact of victim-offender familial relationships on capital sentencing outcomes Evans, Katharine D 01 June 2005 (has links) This study is an investigation of whether familial relationships among offenders and their victims affect capital sentencing. Using a sample of capital cases from North Carolina restricted to familial homicides, logistic regression models are used while controlling for legal and extra-legal factors that influence decision outcomes. Such models of capital sentencing are developed to (1) determine whether familial-victim cases have unique correlates; and (2) whether there are variations in the effects of these correlates across gender. Contradictory to these hypotheses, results suggest that acquaintance and stranger relationships are less likely to receive a capital outcome when compared to familial relationships. Therefore, in North Carolina it appears that familial relationships receive capital outcomes more frequently than other types of victim-offender relationships. Capital punishment Victim-offender relationships Death sentence Murder Aggravating circumstances American Studies Arts and Humanities
4	Fourniture de main-d’œuvre, prêt de main-d’œuvre et droit pénal / Subcontracting of labour force, leasing of labour force and criminal law Caressa, Myriam 06 February 2018 (has links) Construit autour du contrat de travail, le droit du travail s’appuie sur une relation bilatérale entre l’employeur et le salarié. Le prêt et la fourniture de main-d’œuvre perturbent cet équilibre parce que la force de travail du salarié bénéficie à un tiers au contrat de travail. La méfiance originelle s’est traduite par deux prohibitions de principe pénalement sanctionnées : le marchandage et le prêt illicite de maind’œuvre. L’évolution du marché économique a contraint le législateur à dépasser la seule répression pour envisager la légalisation et l’encadrement de mises à disposition de plus en plus variées. Ces nombreux à-coups législatifs, en l’absence de revalorisation des incriminations, remettent en cause l’efficacité de la prohibition pénale. Le droit pénal est-il encore adapté pour lutter contre les dérives des prêts et fournitures de main-d’œuvre ? Si l’encadrement répressif actuel et sa mise en œuvre sont critiquables, la dépénalisation « sèche » n’est pas pour autant la seule solution. / Built around the employment contract, labour law is based on a bilateral relationship between an employer and an employee. The leasing and subcontracting of labour force disrupt this balance because the employee's labour force benefits a third party to the employment contract. The original mistrust resulted in two criminally sanctioned prohibitions: illegal subcontracting and illegal labour leasing. The evolution of the economic market has forced the legislator to go beyond repression alone and to consider the legalization and supervision of more and more types of manpower leasing. These numerous legislative interventions, in the absence of the revalorization of the incriminations, question the effectiveness of the criminal prohibition. Is criminal law still suited to fight against the excesses of labour leasing and subcontracting? Although the current repressive framework and its implementation are open to criticism, decriminalization alone is not the only solution. Prêt de main-d’œuvre Marchandage Prêt illicite de main d'oeuvre Mise à disposition Sous-traitance Portage Statut de salarié Travail dissimulé Poursuites Labour leasing Illegal labour leasing Manpower leasing Social value Efficiency Employee status Accumulative offenses Labour Inspection Aggravating circumstances
5	La coaction en droit pénal / Co-perpetration in criminal law Baron, Elisa 07 December 2012 (has links) Le coauteur est traditionnellement défini en droit pénal comme l’individu qui, agissant avec un autre, réunit sur sa tête l’ensemble des éléments constitutifs de l’infraction. Pourtant, il est permis de douter de la pertinence de cette affirmation tant la jurisprudence comme la doctrine en dévoient le sens.En réalité, loin d’être cantonnée à une simple juxtaposition d’actions, la coaction doit être appréhendée comme un mode à part entière de participation à l’infraction. En effet, elle apparaît comme un titre d’imputation à mi-chemin entre l’action et la complicité, auxquelles elle emprunte certains caractères. Autrement dit, elle se révèle être un mode de participation à sa propre infraction. Surtout, son particularisme est assuré par l’interdépendance unissant les coauteurs : parce que chacun s’associe à son alter ego, tous sont placés sur un pied d’égalité. Ces différents éléments, qui se retrouvent dans sa notion et dans son régime, permettent ainsi d’affirmer la spécificité de la coaction tout en renforçant la cohérence entre les différents modes de participation criminelle. / In criminal law, the co-perpetrator is classically presented as an individual who, acting jointly with another, gathers all the constitutive elements of the offence. However, one may harbor doubts concerning the relevance of this assertion since both case law and legal scholars denature its meaning.Actually, far from being limited to a mere juxtaposition of perpetrations, co-perpetration must be understood as a full mode of participation in the offence. Indeed, it appears as a form of imputation halfway between perpetration and complicity, from which it borrows some characteristics. In other words, it proves to be a mode of participation in one’s own offence. Above all, its particularism is provided by the interdependence between the co-perpetrators : because each of them joins forces with his alter ego, all are placed on an equal footing. These elements, which are found both in it’s concept and in it’s regime, demonstrate thereby the specificity of co-perpetration while strengthening the coherence of the different modes of criminal participation. Action Aide Autorité Causalité Circonstances agravantes Chef d’entreprise Chose jugée Commencement d’exécution Communication pénale Compétence Complicité Connexité Emprunt de criminalité Entente Faits justificatifs Fautes concurrentes Fautes conjuguées Filiale Groupe de sociétés Imprudence Imprudence commune Indivisibilité Infraction collective Instigation Intention Interdépendance Participation Peine justifiée Personne morale Préposé, Résultat Solidarité Subordination Tentative Violences collectives Perpetration Aiding and abetting Authority Causal link Aggravating circumstances Civilian superiors Res judicata Initiation of execution Criminal communication Jurisdiction Complicity Connexity Borrowing of criminality Common plan Justifications Subsidiary Group of companies Recklessness Collective recklessness Imputability Imputation Indivisibility Collective offence Instigation Intent Interdependence Participation Justified sentence Legal persons Agent Solidarity, subordination Attempt Collective violence 340

1

Page generated in 0.0968 seconds