1 |
La réaction sociale à l’égard du criminel dans la pensée d’Enrico Ferri. / The social reaction to the criminal in Enrico Ferri's thoughtEl Mouden, Yatrib 05 July 2018 (has links)
Dans l'histoire de la pensée criminologique, l'école positiviste s'est distinguée par ses idées quelque peu révolutionnaires sur le crime, le criminel et également sur la manière de s'en défendre. Enrico Ferri, illustre représentant de cette école, est celui qui a le mieux synthétisé et diffusé ces idées dans le champ juridique international. C'est lui qui le plus contribué à donner à cette école son caractère de politique criminelle et de doctrine de droit pénal. mais malgré tout, il reste très peu étudié. Contrairement à d'autres criminologues, il n' pas eu la chance de voir ses idées répandues et mises en relief dans les sphères de la littérature criminologique, bien que sa pensée ait exercé une influence importante sur les transformations du droit pénal et que certaines de ses idées connaissent aujourd'hui un regain d'actualité. La pensée de Ferri se distingue particulièrement par la réaction sociale qu’il préconise à l’égard du criminel. Celle-ci découle de sa nouvelle approche scientifique du phénomène criminel et des transformations qu’il voulait opérer dans le droit pénal, pour l’adapter aux données de la criminologie. Ferri propose un système positiviste préventif et répressif de défense sociale. La prévention s’effectuera par des substitutifs pénaux. La répression sera assurée par des mesures réparatrices, des mesures neutralisatrices et des mesures éliminatrices, adaptées à la dangerosité de chaque délinquant. Cette pensée de Ferri connaît un certain renouveau dans l’actuel système pénal, à travers la résurgence des deux notions fondamentales de sa réaction sociale, en l’occurrence, la notion de dangerosité et la notion de mesures de sûreté. / In the history of criminological thought, the positivist school has been to some extent distinguished by its revolutionary ideas about crime, the criminal, and also about how to defend oneself against it. Enrico Ferri, the illustrious representative of this school, is the person who has best synthesized and disseminated these ideas in the international legal field. It is he who most contributed to giving this school its character of criminal policy and criminal law doctrine. Nevertheless, Ferri remains very little studied. Unlike other criminologists, he has not had the chance to see his ideas spread and brought to the fore in the spheres of criminological literature, notwithstanding that his thinking has had a significant influence on the transformations of criminal law and some of his ideas are now gaining new relevance. Ferri's thinking is distinguished in particular by the social reaction he advocates towards the criminal, which stems from his new scientific approach to the criminal phenomenon and the transformations he wanted to make in criminal law, to adapt it to the data of criminology. Ferri proposes a positivist preventive and repressive system of social defence. Prevention will be carried out by criminal substitutes. Repression will be ensured by restorative measures, neutralizing measures and elimination measures, adapted to the dangerousness of each offender. Ferri's thinking is undergoing a certain renewal in the current penal system, through the resurgence of the two fundamental notions of his social reaction, in this case, the notion of dangerousness and the notion of security measures.
|
2 |
A Pragmatic Standard of Legal ValidityTyler, John 2012 May 1900 (has links)
American jurisprudence currently applies two incompatible validity standards to determine which laws are enforceable. The natural law tradition evaluates validity by an uncertain standard of divine law, and its methodology relies on contradictory views of human reason. Legal positivism, on the other hand, relies on a methodology that commits the analytic fallacy, separates law from its application, and produces an incomplete model of law.
These incompatible standards have created a schism in American jurisprudence that impairs the delivery of justice. This dissertation therefore formulates a new standard for legal validity. This new standard rejects the uncertainties and inconsistencies inherent in natural law theory. It also rejects the narrow linguistic methodology of legal positivism.
In their stead, this dissertation adopts a pragmatic methodology that develops a standard for legal validity based on actual legal experience. This approach focuses on the operations of law and its effects upon ongoing human activities, and it evaluates legal principles by applying the experimental method to the social consequences they produce. Because legal history provides a long record of past experimentation with legal principles, legal history is an essential feature of this method.
This new validity standard contains three principles. The principle of reason requires legal systems to respect every subject as a rational creature with a free will. The principle of reason also requires procedural due process to protect against the punishment of the innocent and the tyranny of the majority. Legal systems that respect their subjects' status as rational creatures with free wills permit their subjects to orient their own behavior. The principle of reason therefore requires substantive due process to ensure that laws provide dependable guideposts to individuals in orienting their behavior.
The principle of consent recognizes that the legitimacy of law derives from the consent of those subject to its power. Common law custom, the doctrine of stare decisis, and legislation sanctioned by the subjects' legitimate representatives all evidence consent.
The principle of autonomy establishes the authority of law. Laws must wield supremacy over political rulers, and political rulers must be subject to the same laws as other citizens. Political rulers may not arbitrarily alter the law to accord to their will.
Legal history demonstrates that, in the absence of a validity standard based on these principles, legal systems will not treat their subjects as ends in themselves. They will inevitably treat their subjects as mere means to other ends. Once laws do this, men have no rest from evil.
|
Page generated in 0.291 seconds