Criminal Law Fundamentals: Principles and Responsibilities Explained

Extract

[...] Criminal law would have this function of contributing to the maintenance of a certain social order. Michel Foucault tends to say this. Following this, one might think that the more severely an offense is sanctioned, the stronger its deterrent, preventive effect. But in reality, the severity of penal laws does not prove to be effective in preventing offenses. If this were the case, countries that still have the death penalty would be the safest, but this is not the case, for example, the USA. [...]

[...] This rule is imposed by the principle of the separation of the prosecution authorities and the judgment authorities. The investigating judge cannot himself extend his seizure to new facts, he can only bring the facts to the knowledge of the public prosecutor. He cannot instruct on these new facts. For example, for press offenses, the law of July in its article 50, provides that the act, which seizes the penal judge, must articulate and qualify the facts with indication of the texts whose application is requested. [...]

[...] This crime has been designed to prevent and repress particularly dangerous behaviors, notably on the road but also in terms of working conditions. In practice, it can be noted that this text can be used in many other situations by example: Judgment of 2 March 2016 No. 15-82312, NP: pilot of an aircraft: This is a pilot of a single-engine aircraft who flew so low over a ship that the risk of collision was real continues for not respecting the rules of flight and for the risk of collision that could have had serious consequences: he put others at risk. [...]

[...] Originally, this penal responsibility of legal persons was previously passed in a special way: for a few offenses. Evolution of the code since 1994 The CP has been the subject of many complements, but most of these complements concern the special parts, but the first book has also undergone modification. Special Parts It must be noted the creation of new incriminations, infractions, namely the penalization of new behaviors as well as the so-called bio-ethical laws of July have added forty incriminations to Book 5 of the Penal Code. [...]

[...] These provisions have long been interpreted by many authors (for example, Jean Pradel) as meaning the existence of a principle of penal irresponsibility, absolute criminal irresponsibility for those under 13, simple irresponsibility for those over 13 for whom a return to punishment is possible. This analysis, which could be disputed, was validated by the loi Perben 1 of September which has modified both the ordinance of February and article 122-8. Since article 122-8 begins thus: "minors capable of discernment are criminally responsible" = a minor can be found guilty as long as they are capable of discernment. [...]