No description available.

No description available.

Unconditional sentence of imprisonment from perspective of theory and practice Dissertation JUDr. Jiří Pleva Abstract Author tried to express his opinions to contemporary theory and practice concerning the unconditional sentence of imprisonment and provide some impulses to an appropriate change in his thesis. The basic motto of the introduced discourse was the statement that the prime sign of the imposed sentence is the loss (evil) caused to the criminal. Author wanted to prove the ineffectiveness of the imposed sentences in the cases when the subsequent execution of the punishments will not be for the criminal appreciable enough, whereas the factual appreciability of the punishment is only ad hoc to be stated regarding to the situation of the particular offender. Generally extended statement was disproved, that the unconditional sentence of imprisonment was always the strictest form of punishment, by the chosen cases from the court room and also from the prison practice. In thesis author tried to emphasize the importance of all basic purposes of the punishment, until now modified in § 23 of the Criminal code (1961) which cannot be left out at considerations either about imposing sentence or after the coming into force of the new Criminal code (2009). In spirit of the mixed theory of punishment he expressed...

Bill C-25, The Truth in Sentencing (TIS) Act legislates the reduction of credit awarded for time served in pre-sentencing custody. The Act is but one initiative that reflects a shift toward punitiveness by the West. In reading the literature, a gap was identified concerning TIS activities in relation to the current Canadian predicament of crime control, and a socio-legal perspective provided a creative means of looking at this gap. The primary data was coded and analyzed using sensitizing categories derived from a leading theoretical framework. This framework posited the existence of conflicting criminologies and resulting strategies together forming the present regime of truth. This thesis concludes that 'truth' in sentencing is premised upon contradictory understandings as defined by the framework, that conflicting rationalities are reproduced within TIS and that although the Act is touted as an administrative reform, it also reasserts sovereign power over issues of crime and its control.

Bill C-25, The Truth in Sentencing (TIS) Act legislates the reduction of credit awarded for time served in pre-sentencing custody. The Act is but one initiative that reflects a shift toward punitiveness by the West. In reading the literature, a gap was identified concerning TIS activities in relation to the current Canadian predicament of crime control, and a socio-legal perspective provided a creative means of looking at this gap. The primary data was coded and analyzed using sensitizing categories derived from a leading theoretical framework. This framework posited the existence of conflicting criminologies and resulting strategies together forming the present regime of truth. This thesis concludes that 'truth' in sentencing is premised upon contradictory understandings as defined by the framework, that conflicting rationalities are reproduced within TIS and that although the Act is touted as an administrative reform, it also reasserts sovereign power over issues of crime and its control.

When the United States Supreme Court approved the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, it did so based on the promise of new safeguards against comparative excessiveness and relative disproportionality resulting from jury sentencing in capital cases. As Justice Stevens noted in 2008, one of these safeguards – meaningful appellate review of death sentences – is, in practice, non-existent. This thesis examines the use of this purported safeguard by the Ohio Supreme Court, in the form of comparative proportionality review, to determine the degree to which Ohio capital cases are ‘relatively proportionate’ in the time period after the state adopted life without parole as a sentencing option in 1996. Specifically, this thesis employs two approaches to identifying ‘similar’ cases – the overall aggravation approach (through logistic regression analysis) and the fact specific approach – and then compares each death sentence to its group of ‘similar’ cases to determine whether it is relatively proportionate, given the death sentencing ratio of its comparable group. After establishing that at least forty per cent of Ohio cases were relatively disproportionate, the thesis argues that Ohio’s current approach violates the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. In particular, the Court’s failure to examine cases sentenced to life as part of its proportionality review and its use of the precedent-seeking approach has the outcome of ignoring death sentences that are comparatively excessive. Finally, the thesis concludes by offering a normative model by which Ohio can improve its administration of comparative proportionality review. The thesis advocates the use of a ‘purposive’ approach, defining ‘similarity’ on the basis of the intended purpose of punishment, and suggesting that just deserts retribution provides the best approach for determining ‘similarity’.

La santé des personnes détenues n’a longtemps pas été une préoccupation de la société. Pendant des siècles, la répression pénale a été dominée par la cruauté des châtiments corporels. Malgré une diminution de la souffrance infligée aux délinquants, le recours à l’emprisonnement comme peine principale de droit commun n’a pas ôté à la peine son caractère afflictif en raison de son influence délétère sur l’état physique et mental des personnes détenues. Mais la santé des personnes détenues est progressivement apparue comme un enjeu de santé publique. L’hygiénisation des établissements pénitentiaires et l’organisation progressive des soins aux personnes détenues ont abouti au transfert de la prise en charge sanitaire des personnes détenues du service public pénitentiaire au service public hospitalier. Cette intégration au système de santé de droit commun vise à garantir à la population détenue une qualité et une continuité de soins équivalentes à celles dont bénéficie la population générale. Initialement privées de droits en matière de santé, les personnes détenues se sont alors vues reconnaître un ensemble de droits conférés à tout patient. Toutefois, si eu égard à la particulière vulnérabilité des personnes détenues, des mesures de protection particulières sont mises en œuvre, il n’en demeure pas moins que l’effectivité des droits des personnes détenues en matière de santé se heurte aux contraintes d’ordre et de sécurité du milieu carcéral. Aussi, pour appuyer la reconnaissance des droits des personnes détenues en matière de santé, des garanties juridictionnelles interviennent pour assurer le respect de ces droits. L’intervention de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme renforce la garantie de ces droits issue des textes nationaux. La protection influente du juge européen, qui établit des normes nécessaires à la sauvegarde de la santé des personnes détenues et reconnaît un droit au recours effectif, contraint le juge national à se conformer à la jurisprudence européenne. Ainsi, le juge national intervient non seulement pour condamner toute atteinte aux droits des personnes détenues en matière de santé, mais aussi pour ordonner la libération des personnes détenues lorsqu’aucune autre garantie ne permet d’assurer le respect de leurs droits. / Until recently, society has been largely unconcerned with the health of detainees. For centuries, the penal system has been dominated by the brutality of corporal punishment. Despite a decrease in the suffering inflicted on offenders, the use of detention as the main punishment of common law has not removed the afflictive character from the punishment due to its harmful influence on the physical and mental condition of the detainees. However, the health of the detainees has recently emerged as an issue of public health. The sanitation of penal institutions and the progressive organization of care for the detainees have resulted in the transfer of the detainees’ health care from the public penitentiary system to the public hospital system. This integration of the common law health system seeks to guarantee a standard of care to those detainees that is equivalent to the standard of care enjoyed by the general population. Initially deprived of rights regarding health, the detainee was then recognized with rights that were afforded to all patients. However, if given the particular vulnerability of detainees, special protective measures are implemented, the fact remains that the effectiveness of detainees’ rights regarding health comes up against the constraints of order and security in prisons.Moreover, in order to support the recognition of detainees’ rights regarding health, jurisdictional guarantees intervene to ensure the respect of those rights. The intervention of the European Court of Human Rights reinforces the guarantee of those rights taken from national texts. The influential protection of the European Court of Human Rights which establishes the legal standard necessary to safeguard the health of detainees and recognizes the right to an effective remedy, forces the national court to comply with the European case law. Thus, the national court not only intervenes to condemn any infringement of the detainees’ rights in terms of health, but also to order the release of the detainees when no other guarantee allows to assure the respect for their rights

Investiga se o atual modelo de aplicação da pena privativa de liberdade se mostra adequado aos parâmetros traçados pela constituição de 1988, atendendo ao fundamento da dignidade da pessoa humana e aos objetivos fundamentais de construção de uma sociedade livre, justa e solidária e de promoção do bem de todos. Analisa a dinâmica histórica da aplicação e das teorias das penas privativas de liberdade no Brasil, abordando os principais critérios e atuais orientações da aplicação penal. Sustenta que a dignidade da pessoa humana constitui fundamento do Estado Republicano e Democrático de Direito brasileiro e que, ao lado do princípio da humanidade das penas, seu correspondente penal, fundamenta a necessidade de se evitar ao máximo que os indivíduos sejam afetados pela intervenção do poder punitivo. Conclui, então, pela existência de um autêntico dever jurídico-constitucional da agência judicial no sentido de minimizar a intensidade de afetação do indivíduo sentenciado. Procura erigir novos princípios quanto à aplicação da pena, dotados de força normativa e que atuem de maneira integrada para a tutela dos direitos fundamentais. Defende que a Constituição de 1988 não incorporou o discurso legitimador da pena, limitando-se à tarefa de contenção de danos e de fixação de limites punitivos. Preconiza novos parâmetros para a fixação da pena-base, sustentando a incompatibilidade constitucional das finalidades de reprovação e prevenção do crime. Debate qual deve ser o adequado sentido constitucional das circunstâncias judiciais da pena. Discute as bases da tendência exasperadora da pena, caracterizada pelas agravantes, qualificadoras e causas de aumento, assim como da tendência mitigadora da pena, representada pelas atenuantes, causas de diminuição, participação de agentes, tentativa, concurso de crimes, crime continuado, unificação e limite de penas. Identifica a existência de crise no dogma da pena mínima, propondo, afinal, a construção de um novo modelo interpretativo de aplicação da pena privativa de liberdade. / Investigates if the current criminal sentencing model is appropriate to the parameters set by the 1988 Constitution, in order to respect the human dignity fundament and the essential goals of building a free, fair and solidary society and promoting common welfare. Examines the historical dynamic of criminal sentencing and sanction theories in Brazil, including their main criteria and current guidelines. Points that human dignity is the basis of the Republican and Democratic Brazilian State of Law and, together with the Humanity Principle, represent the need to avoid, as far as possible, the individuals affectation by the punitive powers intervention. Concludes that there is a legal and constitutional duty of judges in order to minimize the severity of penalties and the affectation of sentenced people. Tries to construct new, normatively strong and integrated sentencing principles, aiming the fundamental rights protection. Argues that the 1988 Constitution did not incorporate the legitimizing discourse of punishment, but limited itself to the tasks of damaging contention and sanctioning limitation. Aims to establish new parameters for the base-sanction and alleges the unconstitutionality of the purposes "disapproval and crime prevention". Debates what should be the proper constitutional sense of "judicials circumstances". Discusses the exasperating tendency, characterized by aggravating and qualifying circumstances and increasing causes. Discusses the mitigating tendency as well, represented by attenuating circumstances, decreasing causes, coalition of agents, attempt, accumulation of crimes, continued crime, unification and limits of sanctions. Identifies a crisis in the dogma of the minimum sanction and proposes, after all, the construction of a new interpretive model for prisons application.

No description available.

The purpose of this study is to assess why the race and gender of defendants influence judges’ decisions using the focal concern theory. This study will require around 84 participants. Participants will be federal judges who will be recruited via email. In an online survey, participants will be randomly assigned to one of four conditions . Participants will all read a vignette which an individual was convicted for in trafficking of Xanax. The vignette will be manipulated by the name and accompanying a mugshot based on the race (Black/White) and gender (male/female) of the defendant. The expected result is that there will be a significant effect on sentencing time based on race and gender due to perceived offender characteristics (perceived culpability, perceived aggression). The judges’ prejudice (sexism, racism, and feelings of paternalism toward the defendant) will also have a significant effect on sentencing length. With more research about judges’ perceptions and biases, reforms can be implicated to reduce sentencing disparity and to make the legal system more fair.