Search

In this article the author proposes an analysis of the procedural mechanisms for situations in which one single criminal deed is the subject of multiple criminal trials. In this regard, a detailed examination of the Article 37 of the Criminal Code and Article 585 para. (1) d) of the Criminal Procedure Code is in order. Firstly, the author explains the historical context of the relevant legal provisions. Secondly, the author outlines the two main hypotheses taken into account by the legislator, while also establishing their scope and the procedural issues for each hypothesis. Finally, the article touches on some particular situations that cannot be resolved by using the same procedural mechanism and for which alternative solutions have been proposed.

Rape "by joint action of two or more people" deserves specific aggravated regulation in the Spanish Penal Code (Art. 180.2a) and raises several problems of law interpretation: finding grounds for it, in order to explain why the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of numerical superiority is not enough; determining the title of imputation of those who act jointly when they carry out part of the elements of the offence; but above all deciding whether each of the participants has to answer for a factual concurrence of as many crimes as carnal accesses or as intervening parties who have carnal access, or for a continuous offence, or it can be supported that what happened as a whole should be described as a single rape of intensified gravity. Precisely this last option would explain the existence of the qualified type of acting jointly, and prevent the disproportionate penalties that would otherwise be reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of the so-called “continuous offence” has been hotly debated for years, both by legal academics and in doctrinal writings. This paper addresses one of the most controversial grounds for regarding a prohibited act as a continuous offence, i.e. acting with premeditated intent. Basing a key criterion for considering an act a continuous offence on the subjective side of the offence has made it impossible to work out clear-cut criteria for establishing that an offender acted with premeditated intent, even though the concept of continuous offence has been employed for over twenty years now.

Copyright of Quaestio Iuris (QI) is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper focuses on studying objective signs of delictum continuatum, i. e. continuous offence or offence of several transactions. Within the subjective conception of continuous offence, the author argues that such circumstances as identity of protected or attacked object; identity or homogenity of criminal actions or omissions; joint harm or damage; identity of violated right (identity of victim); temporal and spatial bind between episodes of criminal activities; identity of criminal modus operandi; use of the same situation or continuous relations, etc. belong to variable signs of the analysed legal construction. They have no independent juridical importance, but only prove the identity of mens rea, and just indivisible mens rea determines the natural unity of delictum continuatum.

In this study, the author has chosen to present and to analyze the offence of abandonment of family, provided in Article 378 (1) c) of the Criminal Code, because, with the stabilization of the judicial practice after the entry into force of the Criminal Code, it has been established a new outlook in respect of the approach of the constitutive elements of the offence and a clarification of the controversial aspects with regard to establishing the ill-intention of the offender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bucharest University Annals - Law Series is the property of CH Beck Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)