LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"La Penalización De Los Clientes Como Instrumento De Lucha Contra El Sistema Prostitucional: Una Cuestión De Dignidad Y Derechos Fundamentales (The Criminalization of Clients as an Instrument to Fight Against the Prostitution System)","authors":"Octavio Salazar Benítez","doi":"10.35295/OSLS.IISL/0000-0000-0000-1006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL/0000-0000-0000-1006","url":null,"abstract":"La prostitución se debe analizar necesariamente desde una perspectiva de género, es decir, teniendo en mente las relaciones de poder que implica. Este acercamiento obliga a centrarse en la figura del hombre como sujeto de la prostitución y en la estrecha relación que existe entre el sistema prostitucional y la masculinidad hegemónica. Por consiguiente, es necesario penalizar al consumidor de prostitución e implementar políticas públicas para desactivar la demanda, al mismo tiempo que se revisa el modelo de subjetividad masculina que continúa sosteniendo el orden patriarcal.\u0000\u0000Prostitution must necessarily be analyzed from a gender perspective, that is, bearing in mind the power relations involved. This approach requires putting the focus on the figure of man as a subject of prostitution and in the close relationship that exists between the prostitution system and hegemonic masculinity. Consequently, its necessary to penalize the consumer of prostitution and to implement public policies to deactivate the demand. At the same time the need to revise the model of masculine subjectivity that continues sustaining the patriarchal order.","PeriodicalId":408606,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122162662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Something Old, Something New: Reflections on the Sex Bureaucracy","authors":"Melissa E. Murray, Karen M. Tani","doi":"10.15779/Z38ZK3C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK3C","url":null,"abstract":"This essay responds to “The Sex Bureaucracy,” in which Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk identify a “bureaucratic turn in sex regulation” — one that has expanded the reach of sexual regulation to include “nonviolent, non-harassing, voluntary sexual conduct” (or in their words, “ordinary sex”). In their view, the Department of Education’s campaign against sexual assault on college campuses epitomizes this bureaucratic shift. While applauding the authors’ attention to the intersection of sexuality and governance, we challenge their account of the “bureaucratic turn” as an unprecedented event. Drawing on examples from across U.S. history, we show how administrative agencies and unelected bureaucrats have persistently and robustly regulated sex and sexuality, including “ordinary sex.” Building on this more historical and nuanced portrait of America’s “sex bureaucracy,” we then identify what is truly new and striking about the slice that Gersen and Suk explore. In the Department of Education’s regulation of sex, we see clearly how consent — and specifically, affirmative consent — has replaced marriage as the boundary marker between licit and illicit sexual conduct. At a time when marriage no longer holds force as the distinguishing feature of lawful sex and sexuality, enthusiastic, unambivalent expressions of consent provide the state with documentable signals of appropriate sex and sexuality, while also, we speculate, reinforcing an ascendant neoliberal logic of citizenship and governance. In short, the “sex bureaucracy” is old, but innovative, and very much deserving of our scrutiny.","PeriodicalId":408606,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125025190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ohio V. Clark: Brief of Amicus Curiae American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children in Support of Petitioner","authors":"J. Lawrence, D. Levin, Kevin Brady, Maria Jhai, T. Lyon","doi":"10.1037/LAW0000062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/LAW0000062","url":null,"abstract":"“Testimonial” statements are inadmissible against criminal defendants under the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant was subject to cross-examination. Statements are testimonial if the primary purpose of the speaker and the interrogator was to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. Ohio v. Clark (2015) considered whether a 3-year-old’s disclosure of abuse to his teacher is testimonial. This brief surveyed case law, statutory law, and psychological and criminological research in arguing that it is not. First, young children do not appreciate that their disclosures may be used at trial, because they do not fully understand the legal system. Furthermore, many children do not want their disclosures to lead to criminal punishment because of their relationship with the abuser. In other contexts, the court has recognized that children often lack the same purpose and understanding as adults. Second, the primary purpose of teachers and other mandated reporters is to protect children rather than to punish abusers. The statutory purpose of mandated reporting laws is to protect children and rehabilitate the family, and, as a practical matter, states achieve this primarily through child-protective services investigations and civil proceedings in juvenile court. The court has recognized the distinction between a protective and punitive purpose in defining other constitutional rights. Third, finding children’s statements nontestimonial will promote accuracy in adjudication. The courts assess the reliability of statements before admitting them into evidence, and defendants are free to challenge their credibility. Flexibility in classifying children’s statements as testimonial will encourage the states to videotape investigative interviews with children.","PeriodicalId":408606,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)","volume":"122 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128358247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Regulation of Sex Work in Netherlands","authors":"J. Scoular","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1868193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1868193","url":null,"abstract":"In the UK media, the Netherlands is often described as sexually liberal because of the seeming availability and visibility of commercial sex and pornographic materials. But Kilvington et al (2001) argue that the majority of the population remain strongly censorious, and the moral attitude of the Dutch towards prostitution is not so different from that of other European countries. Hekma (2000) and Oosterhuis (1998) likewise argue that to work in prostitution is to face stigmatization, condemnation or pity from the Dutch public. However, the pragmatism characteristic of Dutch social policy has meant that the sex industry has been long regarded (like other undesirable social phenomena) as an activity whose impacts on society as a whole might best dealt with through pragmatic tolerance (van Doorninck et al., 1998). As such, while brothels were technically illegal in Dutch cities between 1911 and 2000, they only attracted the attention of the public prosecutor where obvious nuisance or exploitation has occurred. In the case of street prostitution, soliciting and purchasing sex has also been tolerated when it occurs in the designated and managed tippelzones that exist in major Dutch cities. This does not imply that the Dutch government has turned a ‘blind eye’ to sex work, or adopted a laissez faire attitude; rather it has identified prostitution as requiring particular attention because of the risks of exploitation and coercion which adhere to commercial sex, as well as the potential nuisances that might be caused to local communities by sex work.","PeriodicalId":408606,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129555613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Sex Crimes: A Principled Approach to Admitting Evidence of Prior Bad Acts","authors":"Benjamin R. Sachs","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1402950","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1402950","url":null,"abstract":"Since the Federal Rules of Evidence were codified in 1975, few revisions have been as controversial as the rules allowing the use of prior “bad acts” of defendants in trials for sexually-based offenses. For nearly two centuries, such evidence had been banned under what we now know as Rule 404, which strictly prohibits “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts . . . to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” But in 1995, Congress introduced Rules 413-415, which for the first time explicitly endorsed the use of prior acts of sexual assault and child molestation for the purpose of showing that the defendant, having committed such acts in the past, is more likely to have committed the crime in question. Although the rules are imperfect, they are here to stay, and more importantly, the next step for these rules may well be their expansion. Using the existing rules as a template for allowing character evidence in contexts beyond sex offenses will only exacerbate the rules’ current flaws, and therefore, the challenge facing federal rulemakers will be - not whether to repeal the rules entirely - but rather, how to expand these rules responsibly. That roadmap will be the subject of this Paper. The proposal offered here would require prosecutors desiring to use prior bad acts demonstrate, through the presentation of “qualified” and “compelling” research, that the defendant, having committed the particular prior acts, would be more likely to commit the crime in question. This presentation would occur prior to trial, typically through a Daubert-like motion or hearing, where expert testimony could be heard. On the one hand, this proposal would increase the burden on prosecutors to show that the particular prior acts should be admitted in the particular case - rather than relying on the existing categorical rules - but on the other hand, it would allow prosecutors to use character evidence in new ways so long as the burden is met. Courts would act as gatekeepers, and social science, rather than politics, will be allowed to guide the expansion in the use of propensity evidence.","PeriodicalId":408606,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115899889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Reclassification of Extreme Pornographic Images","authors":"A. Murray","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00734.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00734.x","url":null,"abstract":"Legal controls over the importation and supply of pornographic imagery promulgated nearly half a century ago in the Obscene Publications Acts have proven to be inadequate to deal with the challenge of the internet age. With pornographic imagery more readily accessible in the UK than at any time in our history, legislators have been faced with the challenge of stemming the tide. One particular problem has been the ready accessibility of extreme images which mix sex and violence or which portray necrophilia or bestiality. This article examines the Government's attempt to control the availability of such material through s.63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which criminalises possession of such images. It begins by examining the consultation process and concludes that an underlying public policy objective was the root of the new offence despite the lack of a clear mandate for such a policy. The article then examines whether this weakness in the foundations for the proposed new offence caused the proposal to be substantially amended during the Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill: to the extent that the final version of s.63 substantially fails to meet the original public policy objective. The article concludes by asking whether s.63 may have unintended consequences in that it fails to criminalise some of the more extreme examples of violent pornography while criminalising consensual BDSM images, and questions whether s.63 will be enforceable in any meaningful way.","PeriodicalId":408606,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121515199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Death Penalty and Gender Discrimination","authors":"Elizabeth Rapaport","doi":"10.2307/3053803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3053803","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the paucity of research on the death penalty and gender discrimination, it is widely supposed that women murderers are chivalrously spared the death sentence. This supposition is fueled by the relatively small number of women who are condemned. This article argues that women are represented on contemporary U.S. death rows in numbers commensurate with the infrequency of female commission of those crimes which our society labels sufficiently reprehensible to merit capital punishment. Additionally, preliminary investigation suggests that death-sentenced women are more likely than death-sentenced men to have killed intimates, although the explanation for this disparity is not yet at hand. It is further argued, on the basis of a content analysis of state capital statutes, that there is a form of gender bias inimical to the interests of women in our capital punishment law: The death penalty is a dramatic symbol of the imputation of greater seriousness to economic and other predatory murder as compared with domestic murder.","PeriodicalId":408606,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Sexuality) (Topic)","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126745792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}