écrit le: 15 novembre 2011 par admin
- 1 Crime
- 2 Crimes and International Criminal Law
- 3 Common law jurisdictions
- 3.1 Definition of the crime
- 3.2 Categories of crimes
- 3.3 Offence categories
- 3.4 Hearings
The case of Vincent Humbert, Chantal Sébire … have shaken public opinion. Law and medicine are they not respond to these requests for euthanasia? Are they real exceptions? … We spoke with Prof. Sadek Beloucif, anesthetist at the Avicenne Hospital (Bobigny) and member of the National Consultative Ethics Committee.
Doctissimo: Cases publicized requests for euthanasia do you think they reflect a lack of law Léonetti? Prof. Sadek Beloucif: These special cases are useful because they affect us all. But when doing serious scientific investigation, and ask patients who are in the last 3 months of life, what are their intentions: they want to avoid the feeling of an extension of an agony inappropriate, they want that we calm their symptoms and pain, they do not want to be a burden and they would strengthen ties with loved ones. It comes exactly a palliative approach to coaching, gentleness and kindness. When this is done, the issue of euthanasia as such is mentioned in less than 2% Of cases. It is mentioned, it is not sought.
Doctissimo: Following these cases, public opinion seems to be open to the legalization of certain forms of euthanasia. Could we then consider changing the legislative framework in this direction? Prof. Sadek Beloucif: Euthanasia is a crime. It is therefore penalized if the question is legislation and euthanasia is a crime is a crime, crime is criminalized. We can not be for or against euthanasia is really the epitome of human situation, extremely difficult or ultimately, it is a wrong answer to an essential question. Death ends the life and death belongs to life at the same time. It puts things in perspective, it can give meaning to life.
Doctissimo: What about when the ‘euthanasia exception’ mentioned in 2000 by the National Consultative Ethics Committee? Prof. Sadek Beloucif:It is a term that existed in the opinion of the ethics committee must be put in context, there is more than 7 years, and then the very substance of life that was no ‘exception for euthanasia’ but ‘joint commitment’. Joint commitment, that is to say together face the inevitable cons and the word ‘exception for euthanasia’ at the time was to say: keep this commitment to solidarity, however, euthanasia remains a crime and someone which could have practiced euthanasia in the same way that raises an objection of inadmissibility, saying ‘I made this act mindfully, with full autonomy in plain knowledge of what I might and I am ready to bear the consequences, I did for love, or altruism. ‘ That’s what courts do when they are seized of such tragedies. We remember it not too long a policeman who killed his wife with his service weapon, it’s a crazy violence, it has not been criminalized.There was a trial, there was a trial, he was convicted for his act but he benefited from mitigating the views of the extraordinary nature of this situation.
Accompany the end of life, learn, speak to 0811020300 The 0811020300 is a line for the general public and professionals to accompany the end of life. This telephone service is an information service, counseling and listening on all matters relating to the end of life. It offers practical help, psychological, social and legal. Monday to Saturday from 8h to 20h, the price of a local call
Bereavement Euthanasia Forum Forum Forum Pain
A film, a book. Seventy years after the fact, the murderous sisters still fascinate. Analysis of an exemplary case of paranoid psychosis.
The walls are covered with blood. Madame Lancelin and her daughter Leonie Genevieve are atrociously disfigured.Their faces are boiled, their eyes gouged out – an eye is found on the first step of the stairs – and the autopsy will prove that they were living enucleated. Besides the dead bodies, bone fragments and teeth. The legs and buttocks of two women were slashed with knives. Their skirts raised reveal the extent of mutilation on the fleshy parts and bottom of the column are vertébrale.Nous February 2, 1933, at Le Mans. The perpetrators of this massacre? Christine and Lea Papin, aged 28 and 21 years, the good of Lancelin, their service since 1927. Two ‘pearls’ that the bourgeoisie of the city envied them … they begin the ‘Papin affair,’ one of the worst and wildest in the annals of crime.Le filmmaker Jean-Pierre Denis them devotes his latest film, ‘Murderous Maids’ based on the novel by Paulette Hoodia, ‘Papin Affair.’ It seeks to explain the gesture of Christine and Lea in terms of their personal history:a broken family, a mother fickle, special pensions, poverty, the difficult condition of servants, their loneliness …
At the material time, justice and psychiatrists said the Papin sisters sane and responsible, we learn Sophie Darblade-Mamouni, legal journalist, in a recently published book, ‘L’Affaire Papin. Yet Jacques Lacan, in his early writings on paranoia (1), was elevated to the heroines of the therapist, pointing their act as the very model of ‘passing the act of murder’ as part of a ‘ paranoid psychosis. ‘Let’s erase all doubt of entry: This is a serious mental illness and difficult to treat. Nothing to do with simple patterns ‘paranoid’ – suspicious – which many of us. Inhabited by voices – auditory hallucinations – the persecutors death threat, the psychotic paranoid delusion is a genuine factory, which may encourage them to defend themselves violently’I’d rather have the skin of my bosses rather than whether they have to mine,’ repeated several times Christine.Le paranoid persecutors have chosen to measure: it is female, it will elect maternal figures or famous women idealized; male, he takes to be kept by him for less, or to women who remind him that he worships his mother and hates simultaneously. At the root of this madness: the mechanism of projection. The psychotic paranoid attributes to others his own feelings of hatred – and erotic – it refuses to recognize. Others, therefore it appear as persecutors, while he sees those he loves with ardent lover, too shy to dare to declare their love. Hence the frenzy erotomaniac common in this disease, which could be summarized as follows: ‘This is not me who loves him, he (she) loves me. ‘Therefore, the paranoid psychosis is authorized to pursue the elected (e) of his heart.Always complex, paranoid sexuality may also take on the appearance of indeterminacy of gender identity, which is confused with homosexuality or transsexualisme.Cette disease is also accompanied by disturbances of language, the words being taken at the foot of the letter. That is why the phrase ‘I will tear your eyes’ was reflected in the madness of the Papin sisters, an actual execution. Paranoid psychosis is very difficult to diagnose because the delusion is not necessarily flashy, the person can remain consistent in appearance, just shut up and darker than average. Besides, says Jacques Lacan, ‘the three medical experts who meet the Papin sisters appear with no signs of delirium or dementia, without any mental disorder or physical’ .1 – In ‘Writings’, Le Seuil, 1999.
Paranoid psychosis usually results from early pathological relationship to the mother. The case of two sisters is no exception.Theirs, Clemence Dere, itself suffering from paranoid tendencies, as explained by the psychoanalyst Marie-Magdeleine Lessana in his book ‘Between Mothers and Daughters: a destruction’ (2). She despises the father and he refuses to interfere between her and her children. It is the very symbol of the omnipotent mother and devouring its offspring prohibiting empower themselves, and gain a real ‘me.’ Yet everyday, she would take up much because she can not. ‘His desire is infested by aggressive impulses, even deadly,’ writes Mary Magdalene Lessana, which force it to give his daughters from an early age to parents or institutions. Clemence believes that aid as so many persecutors, ‘kidnappers’, ‘rapteurs children,’ says the psychanalyste.Rapidement between the elder and his mother is the open war. The young woman complains as in 1928, Madame Lancelin Clemence requests to cease all contact. Cut fatal without the hated mother, Christine has more psychic existence.Girls Papin, more and more taciturn and folded in on themselves – the eldest leading the youngest – Madame Lancelin transfer on the link that bound them to hate their mother. In secret, they call Mom. Everything is in place for the tragedy that will play five years later! Go back to the day of the crime. It is 17 hours. The patronesses outputs, good dutifully performed their daily tasks. They only have to iron clothes. Iron, which has been repaired, causes a short circuit. Impossible for the right to complete their last duty. 18 h 15, Madame Lancelin and her daughter Leonie, Genevieve, returning home. Christine tells the unfortunate episode. ‘Encore! ‘Says Madame Lancelin annoyed. Manifestation of anger that the young woman, eternal persecution takes for an assault against him. She responds with a physical attack. Genevieve is doing to help his mother. This action precipitated the massacre: Christine sees an unacceptable diversion from the established order, as only Madame is authorized to speak to the good.’I will slaughter them,’ shouts the young woman in a trance, calling her sister Leah she enters. Which, as usual, runs: Christine is a senior, she is the head, the ‘boss’ .2 – Pauvert, 2000.
The crime refers to the category of most serious offenses, a category more or less extensive following countries and legal systems. The term comes from the Latin crimen, which means in classical Latin ‘accusation’ or ‘count’ then, in late Latin, ‘fault’ or ‘stain’.
Crimes and International Criminal Law
The Nuremberg Principles of 1950, no positive value, made three categories of crimes of international criminal law:
The crime of aggression is a new category of crimes under international law. However, its precise definition has not yet been made by the Rome Statute of 1998. Therefore, this type of crime remains unresolved.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a principal organ of the United Nations and exclusive jurisdiction since 2002 to try crimes under international law committed by individuals citizens of a Member State. While several international conventions were adopted by different countries, such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, various organizations were established by the international community to prevent crimes of international standing, including the Office UN Committee against Drugs and Crime, the International Narcotics Control Board and Interpol.
Common law jurisdictions
Definition of the crime
Generally, an offense is considered a crime if it affects the welfare of society or if it departs significantly from the socio-cultural norms that dictate the conduct of a normal person. However, courts are called upon to draft a general definition, based on custom and popular conventions, by means of stops to create a legal framework that categorizes the offenses that can be considered crimes. Moreover, without prejudice to the statutory provision itself, courts may declare under this definition that a particular offense is not a crime but rather a minor offense, and that the proceedings and penalties must be adapted accordingly. On the other hand, the implementation of criminal laws can sometimes be difficult in some situations given the frequency of changes (economic, social, cultural and psychological) and timeliness of the authorities.
In the legal systems of common law, a person becomes criminal only when the two basic elements constituting the crime are met, namely the guilty act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea). The principle of criminal liability of an individual is summarized by the Latin phrase: ‘Actus non facit nisi mens sit rea Reum’ which means that the act does not make someone less of a criminal mens rea. Therefore, criminal liability of a person is proved that there exists an intention to commit the sinful act. Any form of intent is also relevant to form a mens rea and may even, for some offenses, for example be defined as a wanton or reckless whatsoever. Generally, an individual could not, for example, be convicted of manslaughter since the involuntariness of the act prevents the formation of criminal intent.However, a murder can be considered manslaughter in the situation where the act is committed as a result of a fit of passion caused by sudden provocation. Although the intention of committing the act is not present before the crime, it is generally accepted that in these circumstances, the intention was formed at the very moment it was committed and therefore, the actus reus and mens rea are met when the act is committed against the victim.
As an intention must be attached to a document that an individual is criminal, convicted the accused, wrongly, is not criminal. However, it is deemed to be until the legal error was discovered. Conversely, if an individual has committed a criminal act with a guilty intention, even if not discovered.
Categories of crimes
The crime is generally divided into six categories:crimes involving the use of force, crimes against property, crimes against public order, crimes against the state, crimes against justice and crimes not perfect.
On the other hand, crimes are categorized as offenses mala in se (literal translation meaning ‘bad thing’) and crimes mala prohibita (literal translation meaning ‘not evil’). Criminal offenses mala in se are crimes that are generally recognized as such in any jurisdiction, such as murder or kidnapping. While criminal offenses are crimes mala prohibita which vary from one location to another within the same jurisdiction. For example, in Canada, criminal laws are under federal jurisdiction. However, in respect of misconduct or act contrary to morality, a certain behavior will not necessarily be considered a criminal offense in any jurisdiction given the differences in socio-cultural norms of a region or province to another.
In common law jurisdictions (egCanada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, United Kingdom, India), criminal offenses are classified into two distinct categories: the crime (indictable offense) that constitutes the offense of which the degree of severity is highest, and the offense punishable on conviction by summary (summary offense). Furthermore, some courts accept offenses mixed (hybrid offense), that is to say criminal offenses for which the procedure can be adapted to the discretion of a prosecutor or a court, and can therefore be treated as criminal acts or offenses punishable on conviction by summary conviction.
Although the procedure of impeachment (indictment) to the crime and the summary are similar in all cases, the terms ‘felony (felony) and misdemeanor (misdemeanor), however, are still used in the U.S. States to define, respectively, the two types of criminal offenses, other common law jurisdictions who in turn modified and standardized terminology.
In situations that are not criminal offenses in the strict sense, they will be distinguished from minor offenses (offense or petty offense). They will be punished by brief (writ), namely by direct contravention (summons, ticket or commonly) or subpoenas (subpoena), depending on the offense. Sentences for minor offenses can range from imprisonment to damages, but are generally smaller than those of criminal offenses.
Where the legislature of a court has not specifically enacted provisions to the effect of creating a court with jurisdiction to decide a case involving a type of criminal offense, only the superior courts, or jurisdiction general, have the power to rule in a criminal prosecution. In other words, the courts defined their jurisdiction as superior courts have the inherent power of trial within a trial for a criminal offense.While the lower courts, or limited jurisdiction, must be restricted to powers which are expressly conferred by the legislature that created them. By their general competence and their inherent power to decide on any criminal cases, each jurisdiction has only one court defined as a superior court and other courts (trial or appeal) are lower courts.
Examples of courts have inherent power of trial in a criminal prosecution include: the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Supreme Court of the State of New York), the Superior Courts of California, the Superior Courts of Arizona, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Quebec Superior Court, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba, the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court of Australia), the Court Supreme of South Australia (Supreme Court of South Australia), the section of Queen’s Bench Court of First Instance of the United Kingdom (Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice), etc..
Examples of courts have limited jurisdiction in a criminal trial for an offense include: the Quebec Court, the Court of Justice of Ontario, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Provincial Court of Nova Scotia), federal courts United States, the Magistrates Court of Tasmania (Magistrates’ Court of Tasmania), etc..
On the other hand, in a criminal prosecution, the courts of one country may, where there is no precedent or where the procedure is ambiguous, based on the judgments of other courts of common law in the world relevant points in relation to their causes. The courts have also used this principle when they base their legal interpretations on the writings of William Blackstone in his manifesto on the laws of England (Commentaries on the Laws of England).