Search

Common knowledge of how society works stands as sufficient proof to how wide is the array of mental disorders that have a significant impact on what is specific to certain offenders. The purpose of this thesis is to raise the level of awareness regarding the degree in which such persons, duly diagnosed with this type of deviant behaviour, pose a threat to society, and to also consider the response to such conduct, which should consist in security measures that are able to contain urges of such kind, desires that most of the times escape some of the aggressors' ability to control on their own. Therefore, we emphasise that, in order to prevent more people from falling victim to such persons, a firm reaction of the legislators is considered mandatory, followed by a similar reaction from the judicial bodies, especially in regard to those who admit and accept the fact that they suffer from this type of conditions, as we are about to demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Art. 39 of Law no. 254/20131, bearing the title „Establishing the detention regime for custodial penalties" requires a wide debate, as it comprises regulations that are contradictory, to say the least, mainly within para. (14) to (19) of this legislation. These provisions pertaining to art. 39 are correlated within Law no. 254/2013 with art. 56, titled „The exercise of a convicted person's rights" - para. (12), and with art. 104 - „Challenging a decision by the disciplinary board" - para. (12). The regulations falling under the scope of this study are essential for the observance of convicted persons' rights, their right to free access to a court of justice (art. 21 of the Romanian Constitution), and to a fair trial, in proceedings related to challenges against the resolutions passed by the custodial supervisory judge in response to applications by inmates regarding the observance of their rights and against the decisions of the disciplinary board in matters relating to the customisation or the amendment of their custodial regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most debated topics in the world is the legalization or non-legalization of euthanasia and medically assisted suicide, a fact that has given rise to many questions starting from extreme situations, whom both legislators and health professionals, as well as patients tried to give answers of the most diverse seemingly, but which have in view only a few attributes that are reduced to ethics, morality, religion. This analysis is therefore interdisciplinary, for the elucidation of which it is necessary that professionals of several professions express their point of view. Last but not least, we appreciate that the one who must be the center of the analysis is the patient, the one who is in a desperate and unsolved medical situation and needs this last release.I [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In preparing this particular research, we aimed to put under scrutiny the concept of the material object by analysing it in special given situations, in connection to the criminal offences that are most frequently encountered in practice, and thus to underscore the importance of this concept as a factor in the evolution of the legal framework. The challenges that appear to be inherent when categorising criminal offences into conduct crimes and result crimes do not constitute a novelty in the works of legal scholars, and even less so in practice, but in order to submit them to a proper analysis, it proves imperative that we possess a good grasp of the material object of the criminal offence, in order to establish the perpetrator”s level of criminal intent, as well as the manner in which criminal liability can be triggered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These considerations are brought about by Decision no. 9 of 12 April 2016 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Panel for the settlement of matters of criminal law. The panel was called to rule on the following matter of criminal law: "whether the material element of the objective side of the criminal offence of public order and tranquility disturbance provided for in Article 371 of the Criminal Code needs to be directed at several individuals and whether, in the case where the action described above referred to only one person, de-criminalization operates in accordance with Article 4 of the Criminal Code." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criminal legislations of other States regulate self-defense in approximately similar manners, without major differences as compared to the conditions required by the Romanian law-maker to be fulfilled in order for the offence to become justifiable/exempt from liability. In this study, we chose to make a comparison in respect of self-defense from the perspective of 18 States around the world and, in the end, we will summarize several conclusions on the extent to which the Romanian law-maker could draw inspiration from their legislations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the reality of practical cases and in certain special situations, self-defence may present some complex forms consisting either in accidental amplification of the issue in fact when self-defence is claimed, or in the correlation in fact of self-defence to other cases which remove the criminal nature of act1. For these reasons, we decided to analyse few of such special situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]