The topic of my diploma thesis is "Prevention of damage". The introduction of the thesis examines prevention of damage in general, main principles and history of prevention in civil law. It is followed by a comparison between the ways this issue is treated in the previous Act No. 40/1964 Sb., the Civil Code, and the current Act No. 89/2012 Sb., the Civil Code. The main part of my thesis is subsequently focused on the ways prevention of damage is treated in Act No. 89/2012 Sb., the Civil Code. The thesis is divided into two parts. The first part contains an introduction to the prevention of damage, it looks into the theoretical definition of terms, selected principles of prevention of damage (which originate from Roman law) and then an outline of historical development of the prevention of damage in the civil codes in the territory of the Czech and Czechoslovak Republic. The second part analyses prevention of damage in Act No. 89/2012 Sb., the Civil Code. This part contains six chapters, which follow the structure set out in Act No. 89/2012 Sb., the Civil Code. The first chapter summarises the theoretical view on prevention, the second chapter describes historical development of the prevention of damage. The second part of the thesis is mainly focused on section about General prevention duty, firstly...

The Swedish penalty system has created a fierce and lively debate during the past years. Thisdebate originates mostly from the youth discount that offenders between the age of 18 and 20can make use of. There is a clear division between the argumentative sides when it comes tothis particular debate. One side argues for the removal of this criminal discount for youngadults, whilst the other side are against it.The purpose of this study is to examine the different underlying perspectives that theserespective sides have. The method of evaluation I will be using in this study is a descriptiveideaanalysis of constructive ideal types. The theoretical framework that these ideal typesstems from are proportionality, justice, general prevention and individual prevention. Thestudy has displayed that the debate regarding this criminal discount for young adults has hadelements of all four of these attributes. There exists fundamental differences in the underlyingideas when it comes to both sides in this specific discount towards young adults. Theopposition side has clear general prevention ideas behind their arguments, whereas the sidethat are in favor of the discount inherently believes in the ideas that regard proportionality,justice and individual prevention.

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar criticamente a teoria da prevenção geral positiva da pena construída por Günther Jakobs. Nesse passo, após uma digressão sobre a crise das teorias tradicionais da pena, analisa-se descritivamente o funcionalismo sociológico desde sua inauguração com Durkheim até a moderna versão sistêmica de Niklas Luhmann. Com base no funcionalismo sistêmico, Jakobs elabora a teoria da prevenção geral positiva em um percurso teórico que é apresentado em três diferentes fases. A segunda parte do trabalho analisa criticamente as bases sociológicas e jurídicofilosóficas do pensamento de Jakobs a partir de um viés da sociologia do conflito e da teoria crítica do direito. Por fim, além das críticas enunciadas pela doutrina penal, a teoria da prevenção geral positiva é confrontada com a realidade do processo de criminalização, de modo a revelar seu viés legitimador da seletividade do sistema penal, suas relações com o papel da mídia no incremento do autoritarismo penal, além do significado material da pena como imposição de sofrimento ao ser humano. O cotejo com a realidade brasileira termina por revelar a inadequação do discurso da pena de Jakobs para sociedades em processo de democratização cuja defesa da liberdade e da dignidade humana assumem um papel de prioritária importância. / This research aims to critically analyze Günther Jakobs\' theory of the positive general prevention penalty. In this way, after a digression on the crisis of the traditional theories of punishment, the sociological functionalism is analyzed descriptively, from its beginning with Durkheim to the modern systemic version of Niklas Luhmann. Based on the systemic functionalism, Jakobs elaborates the theory of positive general prevention in a theoretical course divided into three different phases. The second part of this paper critically analyzes the sociological and legal-philosophical foundations of the ideas of Jakobs from a bias of sociology of conflict and critical theory of law. At last, in addition to the criticism made by the criminal doctrine, the positive general prevention theory is confronted with the reality of the criminalization process, in a way to reveal its legitimizing inclination to the selectivity of the criminal system, its relations with the media\'s role in increasing criminal authoritarianism, beyond the material meaning of the penalty how imposing suffering to the human being. The comparison with the Brazilian reality turns out to reveal the inadequacy of the penalty speech by Jakobs for societies under democratization process whose defense of freedom and human dignity assume a role of primary importance.

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar criticamente a teoria da prevenção geral positiva da pena construída por Günther Jakobs. Nesse passo, após uma digressão sobre a crise das teorias tradicionais da pena, analisa-se descritivamente o funcionalismo sociológico desde sua inauguração com Durkheim até a moderna versão sistêmica de Niklas Luhmann. Com base no funcionalismo sistêmico, Jakobs elabora a teoria da prevenção geral positiva em um percurso teórico que é apresentado em três diferentes fases. A segunda parte do trabalho analisa criticamente as bases sociológicas e jurídicofilosóficas do pensamento de Jakobs a partir de um viés da sociologia do conflito e da teoria crítica do direito. Por fim, além das críticas enunciadas pela doutrina penal, a teoria da prevenção geral positiva é confrontada com a realidade do processo de criminalização, de modo a revelar seu viés legitimador da seletividade do sistema penal, suas relações com o papel da mídia no incremento do autoritarismo penal, além do significado material da pena como imposição de sofrimento ao ser humano. O cotejo com a realidade brasileira termina por revelar a inadequação do discurso da pena de Jakobs para sociedades em processo de democratização cuja defesa da liberdade e da dignidade humana assumem um papel de prioritária importância. / This research aims to critically analyze Günther Jakobs\' theory of the positive general prevention penalty. In this way, after a digression on the crisis of the traditional theories of punishment, the sociological functionalism is analyzed descriptively, from its beginning with Durkheim to the modern systemic version of Niklas Luhmann. Based on the systemic functionalism, Jakobs elaborates the theory of positive general prevention in a theoretical course divided into three different phases. The second part of this paper critically analyzes the sociological and legal-philosophical foundations of the ideas of Jakobs from a bias of sociology of conflict and critical theory of law. At last, in addition to the criticism made by the criminal doctrine, the positive general prevention theory is confronted with the reality of the criminalization process, in a way to reveal its legitimizing inclination to the selectivity of the criminal system, its relations with the media\'s role in increasing criminal authoritarianism, beyond the material meaning of the penalty how imposing suffering to the human being. The comparison with the Brazilian reality turns out to reveal the inadequacy of the penalty speech by Jakobs for societies under democratization process whose defense of freedom and human dignity assume a role of primary importance.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:48:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria Cecilia da Silva Oliveira.pdf: 1257438 bytes, checksum: 8b0b8f0b28810b91059d71c2f0a9466c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-06-07 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / This research discusses the investment in the general prevention as a security device that promotes social and legal practices capable of intensifying the political economy of penalties together with right guarantees in the society of control. The case of ILANUD (Instituto Latino Americano de Prevenção do Delito e Tratamento do Delinqüente), as a center for dissemination of the struggle against juvenile delinquency in Latin America, is presently addressed. Through a genealogical analysis, it intends to deal with the knowledges and fluxes of power that trigger juvenile justice systems connected to welfare policies. Associated to socio-educative measures directed to the responsabilization of the offender , these policies shifted, in the end of the 20th Century, the client custody labeled by the conception of irregular situation to the doctrine of integral protection. This process led to the regulation of the exercise of controls and rights as a biopolitical way of governmentalizing. Under the auspices of international organizations and peace movements in the 21st Century, it is important to analyze the process of humanization of penalties that spread borderless controls. The general prevention, connected to the civil society demand for security, reshapes zero tolerance policies as a neoliberal practice based on the establishment of citizenship, democratic participation and the inflation of illegalities. The democratic discourse of universalization of programs to the youth of the new millennium is confronted by the perspective of resistances, capable of combining punitive practices and the guarantee of humanitarian rights. Against general prevention programs, based on the punishment as exemplary pedagogy on behalf of the aseptic society and healthy body, life is affirmed as will to power, an attempt to provoke lines of flight before the punitive captures of the society of control in the 21st Century / This research discusses the investment in the general prevention as a security device that promotes social and legal practices capable of intensifying the political economy of penalties together with right guarantees in the society of control. The case of ILANUD (Instituto Latino Americano de Prevenção do Delito e Tratamento do Delinqüente), as a center for dissemination of the struggle against juvenile delinquency in Latin America, is presently addressed. Through a genealogical analysis, it intends to deal with the knowledges and fluxes of power that trigger juvenile justice systems connected to welfare policies. Associated to socio-educative measures directed to the responsabilization of the offender , these policies shifted, in the end of the 20th Century, the client custody labeled by the conception of irregular situation to the doctrine of integral protection. This process led to the regulation of the exercise of controls and rights as a biopolitical way of governmentalizing. Under the auspices of international organizations and peace movements in the 21st Century, it is important to analyze the process of humanization of penalties that spread borderless controls. The general prevention, connected to the civil society demand for security, reshapes zero tolerance policies as a neoliberal practice based on the establishment of citizenship, democratic participation and the inflation of illegalities. The democratic discourse of universalization of programs to the youth of the new millennium is confronted by the perspective of resistances, capable of combining punitive practices and the guarantee of humanitarian rights. Against general prevention programs, based on the punishment as exemplary pedagogy on behalf of the aseptic society and healthy body, life is affirmed as will to power, an attempt to provoke lines of flight before the punitive captures of the society of control in the 21st Century / A pesquisa problematiza os investimentos na prevenção geral como dispositivo de segurança que desdobra práticas sociojurídicas capazes de intensificar a política econômica das penas junto a garantias de direitos na sociedade de controle. Nesse caso, como pólo disseminador do combate à delinqüência juvenil na América Latina, discutese o Instituto Latino Americano de Prevenção do Delito e Tratamento do Delinqüente ILANUD. Busca-se por meio da análise genealógica tratar dos saberes e fluxos de poder que fomentam sistemas de justiça penal juvenil vinculados a políticas de bem-estar, aliados a medidas socioeducativas direcionadas à responsabilização do infrator , que deslocaram, no final do século XX, a tutela da clientela etiquetada pela concepção de situação irregular à doutrina garantista da proteção integral, regulamentando o exercício de controles e direitos como forma biopolítica de governamentalizar. Sob a égide das organizações internacionais e movimentos pela paz que atuam no século XXI, cabe aqui analisar o processo de humanização das penas que pulverizam controles a céu aberto. A prevenção geral, aliada ao clamor da sociedade civil por segurança, redimensiona as políticas de tolerância zero como prática neoliberal pautadas no estabelecimento da cidadania, participação democrática e inflação das ilegalidades. É pela perspectiva das resistências que se enfrenta o discurso democrático da universalização de programas à juventude do novo milênio, capazes de conciliar práticas punitivas à garantia de direitos humanitários. Contra os programas de prevenção geral, calcados no castigo como pedagogia exemplar em prol da sociedade asséptica e do corpo são, afirma-se a vida como vontade de potência, uma tentativa de provocar linhas de fuga frente às punitivas capturas da sociedade de controle no século XXI / A pesquisa problematiza os investimentos na prevenção geral como dispositivo de segurança que desdobra práticas sociojurídicas capazes de intensificar a política econômica das penas junto a garantias de direitos na sociedade de controle. Nesse caso, como pólo disseminador do combate à delinqüência juvenil na América Latina, discutese o Instituto Latino Americano de Prevenção do Delito e Tratamento do Delinqüente ILANUD. Busca-se por meio da análise genealógica tratar dos saberes e fluxos de poder que fomentam sistemas de justiça penal juvenil vinculados a políticas de bem-estar, aliados a medidas socioeducativas direcionadas à responsabilização do infrator , que deslocaram, no final do século XX, a tutela da clientela etiquetada pela concepção de situação irregular à doutrina garantista da proteção integral, regulamentando o exercício de controles e direitos como forma biopolítica de governamentalizar. Sob a égide das organizações internacionais e movimentos pela paz que atuam no século XXI, cabe aqui analisar o processo de humanização das penas que pulverizam controles a céu aberto. A prevenção geral, aliada ao clamor da sociedade civil por segurança, redimensiona as políticas de tolerância zero como prática neoliberal pautadas no estabelecimento da cidadania, participação democrática e inflação das ilegalidades. É pela perspectiva das resistências que se enfrenta o discurso democrático da universalização de programas à juventude do novo milênio, capazes de conciliar práticas punitivas à garantia de direitos humanitários. Contra os programas de prevenção geral, calcados no castigo como pedagogia exemplar em prol da sociedade asséptica e do corpo são, afirma-se a vida como vontade de potência, uma tentativa de provocar linhas de fuga frente às punitivas capturas da sociedade de controle no século XXI

Legitimacy of criminal sanction is originated on its own purposes pursued in a state governed by the Rule of Law. That legitimacy should include the penalty as well as security measures, bearing in mind that both are imposed to someone breaking a rule of conduct, and therefore, someone capable to do it. Reviewing penal capacity or criminal liability concepts is required because if penal capacity means the capacity to understand the reality and adjust the behavior to it, and if every legitimate criminal sanction have to be imposed to someone who have the capacity of break it, then security measures also have to be imposed only to people responsible, capable to understand rules and act in accordance. With regard to people not subject to criminal liability they are standing outside Criminal Law and punish them would be illegitimate. In this line, criminal liability should be seen not only as a crime assumption but also as a basic statement for any dialogue the state shall have with the citizens: at the level of crime itself, proceedings and sentence execution . / La legitimación de la sanción penal se deriva de los fines que persigue en un Estado de derecho. Dicha legitimación debe abarcar tanto a la pena como a la medida de seguridad, y tener en cuenta que tanto la pena como la medida de seguridad se imponen a quien infringe una norma de conducta y, por tanto, a quien tiene capacidad para infringirla. Esto presupone revisar el concepto de capacidad penal o imputabilidad,pues si imputabilidad es capacidad para comprender la realidad y adecuar el comportamiento a dicha comprensión, y toda sanción penal legítima ha de imponerse a quien tiene dicha capacidad, también las medidas de seguridad han de ser impuestas solo a imputables. Los verdaderos inimputables son aquellos que están al margen del derecho penal y a quienes resulta ilegítimo imponer alguna sanción. En esta línea, la imputabilidad ha de ser vista no solo como presupuesto del delito, sino como presupuesto de cualquier diálogo que tenga el Estado con el ciudadano con respecto al delito, al proceso y a la ejecución de la pena.

Fragen: Es gibt nach h.M. der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft drei Vorsatzformen: Absicht, sicheres Wissen und dolus eventualis. Soll unterschiedliche Vorsatzform, ceteris paribus, auch bei der Strafzumessung unterschiedlich bewertet werden? Warum? Methode: Diese Fragen werden in einem interdisziplinären Dialog zwischen Norm und Empirie untersucht. Neben der strafrechtlichen und verfassungsrechtlichen Ausführung bezieht sich diese Arbeit großenteils auf die Erkenntnisse aus den Bereichen Kriminalpolitik, Kriminologie, Psychologie, Verhaltensökonomie und Neurowissenschaft. Zur Auswertung der Erkenntnisse wird großer Wert auch auf Forschungsmethode gelegt. Ergebnisse: Zur ersten Frage: Die Schuldangemessenheit gebietet, unterschiedliche Vorsatzformen bei der Strafzumessung unterschiedlich zu bewerten, wenn sie quantitative oder qualitative beachtliche Unterschiede aufweisen. Zur zweiten Frage: Der in Kapitel 6 erarbeitete Maßstab, Vorsatzformen nach dem Risiko für die Tatbestandsverwirklichung abzustufen, erweist sich als am aussichtsvollsten, sich auf solide Grundlagen der Norm und Empirie zu stützen. Möglichkeiten für Vorsatzabstufung nach diesem Maßstab werden erörtert. Eine klare Antwort bedarf aber einer Anpassung der Vorsatzformen an empirisches Wissen, weil die Studien aus anderen Bereichen den Nuancen von rechtlichen Begriffen nicht genug Rechnung tragen. Ferner wäre eine Vorsatzabstufung nach dem Bedarf einer Straftäterbehandlung, wie in Kapitel 4 gezeigt, erfolgversprechend, sollte die Beziehung zwischen den Vorsatzformen und dem Rückfallrisiko festgestellt werden. Ausblick: Der Verfasser plädiert für eine normativ sowie empirisch fundierte Strafrechtsdogmatik. Das heißt, Strafrechtler sollen empirische Beweise vorbringen, nötigenfalls durch eigene Studien, soweit ihre Argumente empirische Thesen enthalten. Zum Schluss verweist der Verfasser auf die Erforderlichkeit, das Potenzial und die Grenzen dieses Ansatzes und die Herausforderungen auf diesem Weg. / Question: According to the prevailing view of German legal doctrines, there are three severe types of mens rea, collectively referred to as "Vorsatz," i.e., intent, knowledge, and dolus eventualis. This work examined two questions: Should criminal acts committed with different "Vorsatz" types, all other things being equal, be punished differently? Why? Method: This work answered these questions in an interdisciplinary discourse between jurisprudence and empirical research, based chiefly on knowledge from criminal and constitutional law jurisprudence, penal policy, criminology, psychology, behavioral economics, and empirical research methods. Conclusion: To the first question: The proportionality between the penalty and criminal act demands that criminal acts committed with different "Vorsatz" types shall be differently punished if they exhibit considerable qualitative or quantitative differences. To the second question: The state of research, as discussed in Chapter 6, indicated that a gradation of "Vorsatz" types according to the risk they pose for crime completion is the most promising guideline that could enjoy both normative and empirical justifications. Possibilities of "Vorsatz" gradation are suggested. However, revisions of the definition of "Vorsatz" types are prerequisite for all these possibilities, because the studies in other disciplines did not take sufficiently into consideration the nuances of legal notions. On the other hand, a gradation of "Vorsatz" types according to the requirements for successful offender rehabilitation, as shown in Chapter 4, would also be promising if the relation between "Vorsatz" types and recidivism risk could be proven. Prospects: The author called for a criminal legal dogmatics on both normative and empirical bases. It means that criminal law scholars should provide evidence for arguments comprising empirical hypotheses. The necessity, potential, and limitations of this approach and challenge toward it are discussed. / 問題：按照德國刑法學通說，故意有三種類型：意圖、明知、間接故意。假設其他條件相同，不同的故意類型在量刑時是否應做不同評價？ 方法：本文以規範與實證之間的對話來回答上述問題。除了刑法學和憲法學的辯證之外，本文大量援引數個領域的知識，例如刑事政策、犯罪學、心理學、行為經濟學及神經科學。為了適切評析實證知識，也注重實證研究方法的理解。 結果：回答第一個問題：罪刑相當原則要求，若故意類型之間具有量或質的重要差異，便應於量刑時做相應不同的評價。回答第二個問題：第6章提出的標準，亦即按照故意類型所代表的構成要件實現風險來做故意分級，是最有潛力同時具備堅實的規範基礎及實證基礎之標準。本章提出按照此標準來做故意分級的數種可能性。然而，必須先對故意類型的定義略做修改，才能得出明確的答案，這是因為其他領域做的研究不能充分顧及法律概念的細微變化。此外，若有朝一日能釐清故意類型與再犯風險之間的關係，則按照犯罪人矯治的需求來做故意分級，如同第4章所分析，也是很可能成功的。 展望：作者提倡「兼具規範與實證基礎的刑法釋義學」，此意味著，刑法學者應該提出經驗證據來支持自己論述當中的經驗命題，若有需要時，也應自己從事實證研究來達成此事。於論文結尾，作者提示這種研究取徑的必要性、潛力和界線，也指出追求此路徑之際可能面臨的挑戰。