Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 22:48:26 GMT -6
There is no “natural crime” that is a certain type of behavior that can or should necessarily be considered criminal at any time place and cultural context. The existence of a crime is the result of a process of criminalization a political activity strongly linked to dominant ethical elements in a society and in a historical moment.
On an ideal democratic plane the ethical conceptions that are juridified are those that politicians as faithful representatives of the population extract as being mostly shared by people. In the B2B Email List world of life however there are countless elements that influence the juridification process and more specifically considering the activity of criminalization the state decision through which it is established that a certain human behavior must be prohibited and punished. Traditions prejudices religious dogmas world views and personal interests of politicians belonging to the most favored classes economic and marketing trends and demands and many other data interfere in decisions about what should be prohibited and what criminal sanction is due in case of transgression. .
The incriminating criminal norm is the result of a political decision through which a certain behavior is tagged or labeled as prohibited and a penalty is assigned to it. This proscription means the reduction of a portion of individual freedom. Considering that in a democratic environment equality dignity and freedom are the fundamental axiological pillars interference in people's lives reducing their behavioral possibilities is the exception. And an exception that must be well founded. A legitimate criminal law is one that is intended to protect something important belonging to someone. Whether this object of protection is a legal good a value an interest whether it can be collective or just individual are controversial issues. There can be no doubt however within a democratic constitutionalism that the State is not authorized to prohibit and punish in an entirely free way.
The political-criminal decision regarding the criminalization of money laundering remains in a twilight zone in terms of verifying legitimacy. To begin with there is no consensus on the most basic fact: what is the object of protection of the rule that incriminates money laundering? Note the extent of the problem: if I don't know exactly what I need to protect how will I efficiently select harmful behaviors?
In the case of money laundering there is no behavior whose ethical value is as clear as that observed in homicide rape embezzlement and corruption. The central problem is that the criminalization in question meets if not completely at least predominantly pragmatic intentions: the aim is to stifle organized crime by suppressing the flow of money and that's the end of it. This lack of a basic ethical framework has proven to be particularly problematic because everything that guides political-criminal activity is the result. As there is no criterion of devaluation to act as a guide the typification most capable of achieving the intended goals is pursued without any limits. This leads to the excessive expansion and excessive tightening of criminal law. The product is an increasingly comprehensive and imprecise criminal type far from constitutional principles legality subsidiarity offensiveness etc.
On an ideal democratic plane the ethical conceptions that are juridified are those that politicians as faithful representatives of the population extract as being mostly shared by people. In the B2B Email List world of life however there are countless elements that influence the juridification process and more specifically considering the activity of criminalization the state decision through which it is established that a certain human behavior must be prohibited and punished. Traditions prejudices religious dogmas world views and personal interests of politicians belonging to the most favored classes economic and marketing trends and demands and many other data interfere in decisions about what should be prohibited and what criminal sanction is due in case of transgression. .
The incriminating criminal norm is the result of a political decision through which a certain behavior is tagged or labeled as prohibited and a penalty is assigned to it. This proscription means the reduction of a portion of individual freedom. Considering that in a democratic environment equality dignity and freedom are the fundamental axiological pillars interference in people's lives reducing their behavioral possibilities is the exception. And an exception that must be well founded. A legitimate criminal law is one that is intended to protect something important belonging to someone. Whether this object of protection is a legal good a value an interest whether it can be collective or just individual are controversial issues. There can be no doubt however within a democratic constitutionalism that the State is not authorized to prohibit and punish in an entirely free way.
The political-criminal decision regarding the criminalization of money laundering remains in a twilight zone in terms of verifying legitimacy. To begin with there is no consensus on the most basic fact: what is the object of protection of the rule that incriminates money laundering? Note the extent of the problem: if I don't know exactly what I need to protect how will I efficiently select harmful behaviors?
In the case of money laundering there is no behavior whose ethical value is as clear as that observed in homicide rape embezzlement and corruption. The central problem is that the criminalization in question meets if not completely at least predominantly pragmatic intentions: the aim is to stifle organized crime by suppressing the flow of money and that's the end of it. This lack of a basic ethical framework has proven to be particularly problematic because everything that guides political-criminal activity is the result. As there is no criterion of devaluation to act as a guide the typification most capable of achieving the intended goals is pursued without any limits. This leads to the excessive expansion and excessive tightening of criminal law. The product is an increasingly comprehensive and imprecise criminal type far from constitutional principles legality subsidiarity offensiveness etc.