Criminal Law. Double Jeopardy. Sentence of Life Imprisonment in Initial Trial Precludes Death Sentence for Same Offense in Trial on Remand

1964 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 559
Author(s):  
Андрей Петрович Скиба ◽  
Андрей Владимирович Ковш ◽  
Александра Николаевна Мяханова

В статье проводится сравнительно-правовой анализ ряда норм катарского уголовного законодательства, а также российского уголовного и уголовно-исполнительного законодательства. Рассматриваются виды наказаний, связанных с лишением свободы, и их содержание по Уголовному кодексу Катара. Дополнительно обращается внимание на систему и содержание отдельных наказаний (в виде смертной казни, пожизненного лишения свободы и лишения свободы на определенный срок). Формулируется авторская редакция статей 57-62 Уголовного кодекса Катара, касающихся системы основных видов наказаний и их содержания. The article provides a comparative legal analysis of a number of norms of Qatari criminal law, as well as Russian criminal and penal enforcement legislation. The types of punishments related to deprivation of liberty and their content under the Qatari Criminal code are considered. In addition, attention is drawn to the system of punishments, the content of individual punishments (in the form of the death penalty, life imprisonment and imprisonment for a certain period). The author's version of articles 57-62 of the Criminal Code of Qatar concerning the system of main types of punishments and their content is formulated.


2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Emir Ćorović

Life imprisonment was introduced to Serbian Criminal legislation with the amendments of Criminal Code from 2019. These amendments replaced the former penalty of imprisonment from 30 to 40 years. Special attention was drawn by the fact that the new legislation allows the possibility of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for committing certain crimes. This legal solution is considered not to be in accordance with the Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Still, the prohibition of parole was introduced to Serbian criminal law in 2013, with the adoption of the Law on the special measures for the prevention of crimes against sexual freedom towards minors. However, at that time the academic community did not give the attention it deserved to the justification of this prohibition, which by itself generates many concerns. That is why, when discussing the problematics of life imprisonment and parole, and its prohibition, one has to bear in mind the previously structured legal frame, as well as the concerns that such a prohibition creates, regardless of whether it not it relates to life imprisonment or timely limited imprisonment.


2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 644-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R Morss

[There are many different ways in which law and truth may be said to be related. It is perhaps in the criminal trial that connections between them are of most signifi- cance. An orthodox way of describing a criminal trial is that the criminal procedure is seeking to establish the truth concerning some past event, and that success of the procedure is measured by how close its outcome converges with that truth. Crimi- nal justice presents the community with challenging dilemmas in this regard, such as those arising from the notion of double jeopardy. This paper discusses the Rawl- sian notions of ‘imperfect’, ‘perfect’ and ‘pure’ procedural justice, and suggests against Rawls that it is pure procedural justice that best represents what we want from a criminal justice system. Good procedure makes good criminal law. A com- parison is made with the writings of Habermas and Posner, and given that pure procedural justice eschews transcendental truths, some brief comments are made on the convergence of that position with the realm of the fictional.] 


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-181
Author(s):  
Kunduz Zhetigenova

The article is devoted to the grounds and conditions for parole from serving a criminal sentence. The article considers the legislative and law enforcement problems that arise when applying the rules governing the procedure for evaluating the behavior of a convicted person during the period of serving a sentence. On January 1, 2019, the new legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic of the criminal law block came into force, which significantly changed the procedure for parole from criminal punishment. At present, it is only possible in relation to persons sentenced to punishments related to isolation from society. In addition, the provision on parole application in relation to additional punishment is excluded from the criminal law. However, the new law eased the situation of a convict for damages compensation, extended the circle of persons entitled to apply for considering the case on parole (abolished in accordance with the rules of parole was possible only after full compensation of the material damage caused by the crime). The legislator also reduced the number of circumstances prohibiting the use of parole from serving a sentence, and showed humanity in relation to certain categories of convicts (the norm on the application of p from serving a sentence in relation to persons sentenced to life imprisonment). The issue of creating a specialized authorized state body that carries out the execution of criminal penalties that are not related to isolation from society, compulsory measures of criminal legal influence, supervision of persons released on parole from correctional institutions, with the performance of social and legal functions of the probation body, was resolved. However, despite all the positive changes, the study allowed the author to conclude that there are actual problems of legal regulation and practical application of the provisions on the conditions and grounds for parole. In particular, the law does not reflect who exactly should act as a person who compensates for damages. In practice, there are often cases when the convicted person did not work, and the damage was paid by relatives. At the same time, the court has no grounds for refusing to apply for parole. In such circumstances, it is doubtful that the goals of the convicted person’s correction have been achieved. In addition, currently the law stipulates the same rules for the application of parole for persons who have committed crimes for the first time, as well as for persons convicted for a set of crimes and a set of sentences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document