Facultatea de Drept / Faculty of Law
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://msuir.usm.md/handle/123456789/6
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Analiza circumstantei speciale de individualizare a pedepsei penale, precum si a clauzei de impunitate consemnate la art.278 din Codul Penal al Republicii Moldova (actul terorist)(Iași:Performantica, 2018-11-09) Cojocaru, Violeta M.This paper analyzes the special circumstance of individualization the criminal punishment for committing the act of terrorism (in the sense of its mitigation). In this context, are highlighted its particularities, including the conditions under which it becomes operational. It is pointed out the opportunity of such mitigating circumstance in the para.(5) Art.278 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. Also it is analyzed the special impunity clause provided by para.(6) Art.278 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. There are outlined conditions in whose presence is it applicable. Is performed the delimitation of the so-called impunity clause by the release of criminal liability in connection with the voluntary renunciation of the offense. It is argued that the impunity clause provided by para. (6) Art.278 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova have the effect of preventing the phenomenon of terrorism.Item Studiu de drept comparat in materia tehnicilor legislative de inserare in textul normei a elementului material al infractiunilor reunite sub denumirea de act terorist(Iași:Performantica, 2018) Cojocaru, Violeta M.In this study is analyzed the material element of terrorist act offences provided by Art.278 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova in comparison with the criminal laws of some foreign states, including Romania. In the field of comparative law we distinguish several techniques for highlighting the list of prejudicial acts in the provision of norms that incriminate acts of terrorism. In the most ex-members states of the Sovietic Union the list of prejudicial acts is exemplary, the legislator describing the objective aspect of the terrorist act by specifying a few damaging facts (usually, the most widespread). According to another legislative technique, the list of damaging facts is an exhaustive, and it is not possible to enlarge them by the person authorized to apply the criminal law. It is also attested the presence of a mixed technique, according to which although the list of damaging facts is exemplified, it contains a much wider enumeration of the normative modalities of expressing the prejudicial act compared to the incriminating models from the first category. According to another legislative technique (minority), in the criminal codes of some foreign states the objective side of the terrorist acts does not contain, neither by way of example, the list of damaging facts, legislator describing the objective side of the terrorist act by using generic terms.