Criterios utilizados por los jueces al cuantificar el tiempo de condena
El delito de robo calificado
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze how judges come to a decision as regards the term of sentence to be imposed on a specific guilty defendant in accordance to the provisions of sections Numbers 40 and 41 of Argentina’s Criminal Code. The judges, as social agents, determine how long the penalty would be in each case and whether there are merits for reducing or increasing the term. Although judges, are restricted by the legal provisions which state the aspects to be considered in such process (the characteristics and circumstances of the criminal offender and the nature of the crime committed), they are also influenced by other aspects which go beyond the legal one, and therefore these aspects affect their jurisdictional activity and their results.
The data presented is the outcome of a research done in the year 2009, based on the study of judicial sentences imposed on criminal convicts during 2008 in the 1st Circuit Criminal Law Court of the province of Córdoba. The starting point of the work is an in depth-reading of the legal content of the Criminal Code, plus a brief revision of doctrinal and jurisprudential debates on the issue. Finally, the focus of the research is on the analysis of the results of concrete judicial practice: The description of the judges’ assessment of the length of the term to be imposed on a criminal convict and which are the grounds for each individual decision so as to discover the tendencies taking into account doctrinal points of view.
Downloads
References
Casper, J. D.; Brereton D. and Neal, D. (1982). The implementation of the California determinate sentencing law. United States Department of Justic,Washington D.C.
Cohen, J. y Tonry, M. H. (1983).“Sentencing reforms and their impacts”. Blumstein, A. et al. (eds.). Research on sentencing: The search for reform, vol. 2..: National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
Creus, C. (1996). Derecho Penal. Parte General. Editorial Astrea, Buenos Aires.
De la Rúa, J. (1997). Código Penal Argentino-Parte General. Ed. Depalma, Buenos Aires.
Ferrajoli, L. (1995). Derecho y Razón. Teoría del Garantismo Penal. Editorial Trota, Madrid.
Fontán Balestra, C. (1995). Tratado de Derecho Penal-Tomo III-Parte General. Ed. Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires.
Knapp, K. A. (1984). “What sentencing reform in Minnesota has and has not acccomplished”, 68 Judicature 181.
Knapp, K. A. (1982). “Impact of the Minnesota sentencing guidelines on sentencing practices”, 5 Hamline Law Review 237.
Lista, C. A. (1993). “¿Administración de justicia penal sin discrecionalidad judicial? El caso del estado de Minnesota, EEUU”, Actas del VIII Encuentro Panamericano de Derecho Procesal, Córdoba.p.269-288.
Lista, C. A. (1999). “¿Administración de Justicia o Administración de Tensiones?: un enfoque multidimensional”, en Agulla, J. C. (comp..). Ciencias Sociales. Presencia y Continuidades. Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Instituto de Derecho Público, Ciencia Política y Sociología, Buenos Aires. p. 369-397.
Lista C., Bertone F., Azcona N., Mera Salguero A., Soria García E. (2009). “Capítulo II: La individualización judicial de la pena”. Colección investigaciones y ensayos, Centro de Perfeccionamiento Ricardo C. Núñez. Violencia familiar y análisis de sentencias en el fuero civil, penal y laboral. Poder Judicial de la Provincia de Córdoba, Córdoba.
Marchiori, H. (1995). Determinación judicial de la pena, Ed. Marcos Lerner, Córdoba.
Martin, S E. (1983). “The politics of sentencing reform: sentencing guidelines in Pennsylvania and Minnesota”, A. Blumstein, et al, (eds.), Research on Sentencing: The Research for Reform, vol. 2,., National Academy Press. Washington D.C
Moore, Ch. A. y Miethe, T. D. (1986). “Regulated and unregulated sentencing decisions: an Analysis of first year practices under Minnesota’s felony sentencing guidlines”, Law & Society Review, vol. 20, Nº 2.
Moore, Ch. A. y Miethe, T. D. (1985). “Socioeconmic disparities under determinate sentencing systems: A comparison of preguideline and postguideline practices in Minnesota”, 23 Criminology 337.
Núñez, R. (1999). Manual de derecho pena. Parte general: Ed. Marcos Lerner, Córdoba .
Núñez, R. (1988). Derecho Penal Argentino-Tomo II. Editorial Omeba, Buenos Aires.
Rich, W.; Sutton, L; Clear, T. y Saks, M. (1981). Sentencing Guidelines: Their operation and impact on the courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Scanzenbach, M. M. y Tiller, E. H. (2007). “Reviewing the Sentencing Guidelines: Judicial Politics, Empirical Evidence, and Reform”. Northewestern Public Law Research Paper Nº 07-17, June 2007. Disponible: http://ssrn.com/abstract=995299
Soler, S. (1973). Derecho Penal Argentino-Tomo II. Ed. Tipográfica Argentina, Buenos Aires.
Von Hirsch, A. (1982). “Constructing Guidelines for sentencing: The critical choice for the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Comisión”, 5 Hamline Law Review 164.
Von Hirsch, A. y Hanrahan, K. (1981). “Determinate penalty systems in America: An overview”, 27 Crime and Delinquency, 289.
Zaffaroni, E.R. (1993). Hacia un realismo jurídico penal marginal. Ed.Monte Avila, Caracas.
Zaffaroni, E.R., Alagia, A., Slokar, A. (2002). Manual de Derecho Penal. Ed. Ediar S.A. Buenos Aires.
Ziffer, P S. (2005). Lineamientos de la determinación de la pena. Ed. Ad-hoc, Buenos Aires.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación, con el trabajo registrado con la licencia de atribución, compartir igual, de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta revista.
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales por Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
