Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
ضرورة التمييز بين الفاعل والشريك في الجريمة وتفعيل أحكام العود
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
ضرورة التمييز بين الفاعل والشريك في الجريمة وتفعيل أحكام العود
Do you wish to request the book?
ضرورة التمييز بين الفاعل والشريك في الجريمة وتفعيل أحكام العود
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
ضرورة التمييز بين الفاعل والشريك في الجريمة وتفعيل أحكام العود
2011
Overview
There is no problem in prosecuting the legal judgment against a crime committed singly and applying the legally designated punishment . However a crime may be committed by many people (some actually committing the crime, and others only participating into only without actually executing the crime. Penal legislations disagree on the type and intensity of the punishment designated for the criminal participation. Some render equal judgments to the actual criminals and their partners. Others render lighter sentence to the partner. A third party adopt a middle measure between the two. We noted in our study that legislations that differentiate their punishment between the two above groups are more sound. This prompted us to propose in the conclusion for provisions as replacement for that of the existing criminal participation as cited in the penal code No.111, year 1969, which is currently in force. A convicted criminal recurring to another crime indicated that the punishment of the former crime did not deter him. This calls for tougher dealing. This is the path of the Iraqi jurisdiction since the legislation of the annulled Baghdad Penal Code until the legislation of the Penal Code No. 111 (year 1969) currently in force. However, the Decision No. 997 of 30/7/1978 disrupted the stipulations of recurrence to crime as provided for in Articles 139 and 140 of the Penal Code. This encouraged criminals to follows the easy path of crime, especially the person who commits a former crime knowing that the punishment of recurrence to a second crime is the some as that of his first crime. This will not prevent him for 128 committing the crime anew . This prompted us to a provisional suggestion for this case until such time when the legislation closes the legislative gap of this important issue either by adopting our suggested provisions or by others.
Publisher
الجامعة المستنصرية - كلية القانون
Subject
