Economic Crime and Penalties: An Analysis of Compliance
Continued economic crime in the Jump-type: no penalty should be applied at the upper, lower, or higher grade to prevent bis in idem.
This regulation raises several questions:
- Establishing what the most severe penalty is in a continuing offense may be difficult. In many cases, they cannot prove each and every one of the violations, what the law calls “indeterminacy procedural violations.” It will be necessary to know all penalties for comparison, and the proven violations may be taken into consideration.
- The accumulation of damage in property offenses and the “break rate” can hardly lead to the “continued failure” mentioned in art. CP 74.1, since the amount of damages will always lead to the estimation of a continuing offense.
- Art. CP 74.3 states the general principle that the above rules do not apply to crimes against personal property (life or health), but can be seen in continuity criminal offenses against honor and liberty or indemnity sexual violence committed against an individual person (depending on the nature of the facts and the rule infringed). Example: implementing a continuing offense in cases of sexual abuse on a continuing basis.
Compliance with Cash Accumulation Penalty in Cases of Crime
Article 78 CP: judges may, in the sentence, establish a regime of access to prison for certain taxable benefits if there is an accumulation of crimes, other than generally applicable.
This scheme has been modified and hardened by the LO 7 / 2003, known as “Reform Measures for Full and Effective Enforcement of Sentences.”
The basic rule of Article 78 is aimed at eliminating parole, furloughs, and open regime in cases where the compliance limit specified in the death of art. 76 (20, 25, 30, or 40 years) is less than half of total sentences.
The procedure is to perform the computations necessary for these concessions (e.g., 3 / 4 of the sentence for parole) from the total number of sentences, rather than from the limits for compliance. It also mentions the “penitentiary benefits,” which correspond to those laid down in arts. 202 et seq. of the Prison Regulations 190/1996 (advance parole and clemency petition). With this calculation, total penalties in cases of very high sentences (100, 200 years), probation, open system, etc., disappear, and the subject will be released to reach the limit of compliance (20, 25) after actually meeting them, not in semi-free situations.
This elective compliance system can be arranged in the sentence in cases where the compliance limit is three times more severe penalty or 20 years, but must necessarily be imposed in cases of the letters A, B, C, and D Art. 76.1 (range 25, 30, and 40).
The existing regulation and its reform are a triumph of concessions to the feelings of revenge fueled remuneration and demagogic facto elimination of situations of semi-oriented social reintegration involves the introduction of life imprisonment that contradicts this constitutional guidance penalties: 40 years of effective imprisonment without exit permits a higher penalty to life imprisonment in other European legal systems, in which you can get parole after serving 15 years. The 15 years of continued detention is the period usually stated doctrinally as that from which the prison and causes irreversible damage to the personality, so that imprisonment of such excessive lengths as those in the CP, they even consider inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 15 of our Constitution.
The CP 78.3 permission to return to the normal compliance if agreed by the Supervisory Judge, after reintegration individualized prognosis, evaluating personal circumstances and the progress of treatment, but hearing the Prosecution, Prisons and affected by crime. This ability to regain normal compliance regime is virtually nonexistent in cases of terrorism and organized crime, since the art. 78.3 only allows for the open regime remains to be served when 1 / 5 of the maximum, and probation when subtract one-eighth (respectively, 32 and 35 years if it is a limit of 40 years less than half of the total imposed).
Finally, it should be noted that the conditions for parole have been tightened in general.