The crime of theft under s. 205 of the Criminal Code Theft is a traditional offence against a property and it is the most frequent offence in Czech Republic. A statistic of the thefts committed in 2011 compared to the other offences against a property is attached to this dissertation work. Every criminal offence in Czech Criminal law must be established by a statute. Theft is regulated in section 205 of the Criminal Code. Theft is unique for its duality of body of an offence. Subsection 1 regulates the basic form of the theft, whilst subsection 2 regulates recidivism. The following subsections 3-5 deal with circumstances in which more severe sanctions might be applied. The basic element of theft is wrongfulness. Only a wrongful act might be regarded as a crime. The wrongfulness might be presumed from various statutes and branches of law other than Criminal law (e.g. Civil law, Constitutional law). The other element of a theft is its body of an offence. It consists of an object, objective side, subject and subjective side. The object of the theft is value against which the offender's action is aimed. Theft's object is proprietary right of an owner. Objective side generally consists of a conduct, result and causality. The objective side of the theft according to subsection 1 is "appropriation of thing...

The topic of this diploma thesis is a crime of robbery which is an offence under title two of chapter one of the special part of the Criminal Code as a crime against liberty (section 173 of Act No. 40/2009 Coll). Despite being one of the oldest delicts on our territory, its high severity and frequency in application render this topic particularly relevant. Not only does this thesis focus on the crime of robbery itself, as defined in section 173 of the Criminal Code, but it also addresses other legal provisions of the Criminal Code which are related to this topic. All compulsory elements of the facts of the criminal offence of robbery are scrutinized in detail - its object, objective side, perpetrator and subjective side. This thesis does not only analyze the basic form of robbery defined in subsection 1 of section 173 of the Criminal Code, but also the circumstances in which more severe penalties might be applied, as defined in other subsections of this section. Furthermore, the development stages of robbery and the participation in this crime are described and a comparison between the crime of robbery and a selection of other crimes is made. Historical development of the crime of robbery and its comparison to the foreign legislation are not omitted. The conclusion summarizes the entire thesis and...

Section 718.2 (e)’s directive to canvass all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders was to be given real force. This study’s goal was therefore to identify what considerations may be impeding or encouraging the application of section 718.2 (e)’s directive through a constructivist discourse analysis of 33 court of appeal cases. The study has mapped trends and influences which weigh strongly on sentencing judges in the decision-making process and considerations that are affecting the application of this provision. Prohibitive and permissive dimensions of the Gladue case were identified related to the application of section 718.2 (e), creating competing ideals in the application of the provision. Modern Penal Rationality (MPR) underpinned many of the judges’ justifications. However, unforeseen considerations were also noted. Ultimately, MPR, dominates the sentencing calculus and diminishes section 718.2 (e)’s application and alternative/restorative potential.

Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that polygamy is an indictable offence. In a recent reference to the Supreme Court of British Colombia, the court held that this section was constitutionally valid and did not infringe upon religious freedom because of the harm polygamous marriages caused to women, children, society and most importantly, “the institution of monogamous marriage”. This paper will revisit the court’s analysis of polygamy and discuss why it was considered harmful and preserved as a criminal act. The paper will canvas the underlying differences between the roles ascribed to marriage in Islam, as an example of a non-Western religio-legal tradition, and the collective liberal West. Ultimately, the paper will consider whether a balance can be struck between the measures required to protect women and children from harm, and preserving religious freedom, while remaining within the bounds of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that polygamy is an indictable offence. In a recent reference to the Supreme Court of British Colombia, the court held that this section was constitutionally valid and did not infringe upon religious freedom because of the harm polygamous marriages caused to women, children, society and most importantly, “the institution of monogamous marriage”. This paper will revisit the court’s analysis of polygamy and discuss why it was considered harmful and preserved as a criminal act. The paper will canvas the underlying differences between the roles ascribed to marriage in Islam, as an example of a non-Western religio-legal tradition, and the collective liberal West. Ultimately, the paper will consider whether a balance can be struck between the measures required to protect women and children from harm, and preserving religious freedom, while remaining within the bounds of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 718.2 (e)’s directive to canvass all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders was to be given real force. This study’s goal was therefore to identify what considerations may be impeding or encouraging the application of section 718.2 (e)’s directive through a constructivist discourse analysis of 33 court of appeal cases. The study has mapped trends and influences which weigh strongly on sentencing judges in the decision-making process and considerations that are affecting the application of this provision. Prohibitive and permissive dimensions of the Gladue case were identified related to the application of section 718.2 (e), creating competing ideals in the application of the provision. Modern Penal Rationality (MPR) underpinned many of the judges’ justifications. However, unforeseen considerations were also noted. Ultimately, MPR, dominates the sentencing calculus and diminishes section 718.2 (e)’s application and alternative/restorative potential.

Section 718.2 (e)’s directive to canvass all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders was to be given real force. This study’s goal was therefore to identify what considerations may be impeding or encouraging the application of section 718.2 (e)’s directive through a constructivist discourse analysis of 33 court of appeal cases. The study has mapped trends and influences which weigh strongly on sentencing judges in the decision-making process and considerations that are affecting the application of this provision. Prohibitive and permissive dimensions of the Gladue case were identified related to the application of section 718.2 (e), creating competing ideals in the application of the provision. Modern Penal Rationality (MPR) underpinned many of the judges’ justifications. However, unforeseen considerations were also noted. Ultimately, MPR, dominates the sentencing calculus and diminishes section 718.2 (e)’s application and alternative/restorative potential.

This diploma thesis deals with the categorization of criminal offenses in the Czech Criminal Code, it is a fundamental issue related to criminal liability. The recodification of the Criminal Code in 2009 brought with it several changes, one of the most discussed areas was the new categorization of crimes, which moved from a monopartite to a bipartite of crimes (misdemeanour and crime). However, the "new" categorization of criminal offenses was not the only change brought about by the Czech Criminal Code. Among others is the issue of the concept of crime, respectively. its change from material-formal to formal conception. However, in today's Criminal Code, thanks to the principle of subsidiarity of criminal repression, we do not have a formal concept in its pure form, but rather a materialized formal concept. In Czech criminal law, we have two correctives - the principle of subsidiarity of criminal repression, as a substantive corrective and the principle of opportunity, as a corrective of procedural law. The need for two correctives is debatable and opinions differ widely. For this reason, I described them in my thesis and I allowed myself to present my opinion on this issue. In order to describe the topic of the diploma thesis as comprehensively and in mutual context, I divided the work into three...

The submitted work, as follows from its title, is concerned with criminal recidivism, in the first part primarily from a criminological perspective, while the second part of the work then deals particularly with the perspective of criminal law. As there has been a tendency to neglect recidivism in the professional literature in recent years, this work attempts to provide an overall summary of the subject of criminal recidivism while endeavouring to mention the most important aspects that are closely related to recidivism. Consequently, the introductory part of the work is devoted to a general delimitation of criminal recidivism and its various forms. The work attempts to make a basic excursion into this subject area while simultaneously endeavouring to evaluate the effectiveness of the commonest approaches employed in connection with criminal recidivism, primarily in relation to the current legislation in this country and abroad. In the context of foreign legislation and especially of the application of life sentences in the most serious cases of recidivism in some countries (including the former legislation in the Czech Republic) as obligatory punishment, considerable space is devoted here to the "three strikes law", which is applied primarily in the U.S.A. and, recently, also by our Slovak...

O presente estudo tem como objeto a norma contida no artigo 184 do Código Penal, consistente no crime de violar direitos de autor e os que lhe são conexos. A ideia central da pesquisa é perceber as raízes e a finalidade da criminalização das condutas violadoras que, em certa extensão, revelam a eventual dignidade do bem jurídico penal e, aliada à eventual necessidade, fundamenta a manutenção do dispositivo no ordenamento jurídico. Nesse contexto, a preliminar delimitação do bem jurídico penalmente protegido se mostra indispensável para a compreensão da matéria proibida, bem como para o processo de interpretação casuístico. Contudo, o tema é controverso, haja vista que a criminalização das infrações aos direitos intelectuais de forma geral não é consenso entre os penalistas ao redor do mundo, assim como a efetiva aplicação das respectivas penalidades pelos magistrados brasileiros. Isso porque equivocadamente se entende que os direitos de autor seriam, em analogia aos demais direitos intelectuais, uma espécie de direito de propriedade, e a incriminação das condutas infratoras teria por finalidade única a tutela do direito exclusivo de exploração econômica de sua criação ou invento. Da referida análise concluiu-se que, diferentemente dos direitos de Propriedade Industrial, os autorais não se resumem a direitos de cunho patrimonial. O sistema francês denominado Droit d Auteur, absorvido pela legislação brasileira, está guiado para a proteção do autor enquanto criador, de sua personalidade e individualidade, e se concretiza pela concessão de um direito exclusivo de participação pela utilização econômica de sua criação. Trata-se, pois, de um Direito sui generis, haja vista a índole imaterial de seu objeto, bem como sua natureza jurídica peculiar, que o aparta dos demais direitos privados. Portanto, sua colocação em risco produz, de forma mediata, prejuízos a toda a sociedade, como o desincentivo dos esforços e investimentos realizados por sujeitos interventores no processo criativo e comercial, e, consequentemente, a diminuição do progresso técnico, econômico, cultural e social. Concluiu-se, desse modo, que os direitos de autor são dignos da tutela penal ante a seriedade das lesões aos direitos de autor e as consequências nocivas para o livre desenvolvimento da comunidade. Igualmente, a tutela faz-se necessária e adequada diante da falibilidade dos meios de proteção menos gravosos, tal qual a via administrativa e a civil. Por outro lado, criticou-se a previsão normativa contida no caput do artigo 184, em termos de oportunidade, porque a incriminação genérica de toda a esfera do Direito de Autor degenera a finalidade do Direito Penal e, em termos de legalidade, porque carece da determinação, fundamental ao tipo incriminador, visto que não descreve minimamente a conduta típica de modo a permitir ao destinatário da norma orientar a sua conduta. Tais desacertos trazem consequências danosas tanto para o equilíbrio do sistema penal quanto para a aplicação concreta da norma ao fato concreto. Para tanto, sugeriu-se a criação de uma abertura legal para que a prática da administração da justiça permita, em algumas situações nas quais o castigo penal resulte desproporcional ou ineficaz, minimizá-lo, substituí-lo ou, inclusive, afastá-lo. Do mesmo modo, o sistema penal deve hierarquizar os direitos intelectuais no sentido de atribuir-lhes os valores sociais, econômicos, materiais e espirituais que lhes tenham sido dados pelos ordenamentos jurídicos internacionais, constitucionais e legislativos especiais. / The object of the present study is the provision of the article 184 of the Brazilian Criminal Code, consistent on the crime of violating copyright and neighbor rights. The central idea of the research is to identify the background and the purposes of copyright violating conducts criminalization. That understanding, to some extent, reveals the dignity of the legal protected right and, allied with its potential need, justifies the maintenance of the referred provision in the legal system. In that context, the preliminary delimitation of the legal protected right under criminal law shows itself to be essential to comprehend the forbidden behaviors, as well as to the process of interpretation on a case by case basis. The topic is controversial, however, since the criminalization of intellectual property rights infringements is not in consensus among the indoctrinators around the world, as well as the effective execution of the respective penalties this is also the case in the Brazilian magistrates. The reason for that is because copyright is erroneously considered by some a sort of property right similarly to other intellectual property rights and the sole purpose of criminalization would consist on the protection of an exclusive right regarding to the economic exploitation of their creation or invention. From this analysis it was concluded that, unlike industrial property rights, copyright may not be reduced to patrimonial rights. The French system called Droit d\' Auteur, absorbed by the Brazilian legislation, seeks the protection of the author as creator - his personality and individuality - and is materialized by the granting of an exclusive right of participation in the economic use of his creation. This is, therefore, a sui generis right, given the intangible nature of its object, as well as its peculiar legal nature, which separates it from the other private rights. Hence, the threat to such rights produces, indirectly, losses for the whole of society, as the discouragement of the efforts and investments made by the creativity industry, and, subsequently, a reduction in technical, economic, cultural and social progress of the country. It was concluded, therefore, that copyright justifies a criminal protection in face of the seriousness of the injuries to the authors and the harmful consequences for the free development of the community. Also, the criminal safeguard is necessary and appropriate given the failure of other protection fields less severe, such as administrative and civil spheres. On the other hand, the normative contained in the head of article 184 it was criticized, in terms of opportunity and legitimacy. In relation to opportunity because the generic criminalization of the broad field of copyright degenerates the purposes of criminal law. Additionally, vis-à-vis legitimacy, it lacks determination - vital to the incriminating articles , since it does not minimally describe the illegal conduct in order to allow the receiver to guide his behavior. Such misunderstandings have harmful consequences to the balance of the criminal system, as well as to the concrete application of the criminal law. As a result, the creation of a legal breach has been suggested so that the practice of Justices administration allows - in some situations where the criminal punishment will result disproportionate or ineffective to minimize it, replace it or even not to consider it. Likewise, the criminal system must designate the intellectual rights in order to assign them the social, economic, spiritual and material values that have been given by international legal systems, special laws and constitution.