Implicațiile Deciziei RIL X(10)/2005 asupra recidivei și asupra modalității de sancționare a concursului de infracțiuni în cazul grațierii antecondamnatorii

This research seeks to analyse the effects produced in matters of pardon and plurality of crimes by the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s Decision X(10)/2005. Although the modality of sanctioning the concurrent crimes established by the supreme court seems fair from the convict’s point of view,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inForum juridic Vol. 2021; no. 3; pp. 9 - 28
Main Author Chițimia, Tudor-Andrei
Format Journal Article
LanguageRomanian
English
Published Facultatea de Drept, Universitatea din București 12.10.2021
Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest
Subjects
concurrent crimes
Court case
Criminal Law
prior pardon
recidivism
remerge
resultant punishment
the principle of complete individualization of the punishment
concurrent crimes
the principle of complete individualization of the punishment
recidivism
resultant punishment
remerge
prior pardon
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This research seeks to analyse the effects produced in matters of pardon and plurality of crimes by the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s Decision X(10)/2005. Although the modality of sanctioning the concurrent crimes established by the supreme court seems fair from the convict’s point of view, the benefit resulted from the pardon is doubled in an unjustified manner. This way, the prior pardon would also remove an eventual state of recidivism, besides the forgiveness of the punishment’s execution applied by the court. As a result, it will be brought up for discussion a principle created by the criminal law’s older literature, followed by the corroboration between the arguments in favour of this principle, the other opinions of the criminal law’s literature in this matter and some national courts decisions. These will be done with the purpose to suggest a possible solution for solving this law issue which respects the effects that pardon can legally produce. Later, we will also compare this problematic with some particular hypotheses which can occur in practice. In the end, we will present another mandatory jurisprudence of the supreme court which is in contradiction with the decision from which the assumption of this article was made.
ISSN:2734-7524
2734-7524
DOI:10.31178/AUBD-FJ.2021.3.02