改革香港非保障性犯罪:香港法律改革委员会的建议与其他司法管辖区最近的建议相比如何?

Andrew Dyer, Thomas Crofts
{"title":"改革香港非保障性犯罪:香港法律改革委员会的建议与其他司法管辖区最近的建议相比如何?","authors":"Andrew Dyer, Thomas Crofts","doi":"10.1177/14737795221116396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we consider the reforms to non-consensual sexual offences that the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (‘LRCHK’) has recently advocated in its Final Report about the law relating to sexual offending in that jurisdiction. We argue that a comparison between the LRCHK's proposals and those supported in recent years by Law Reform Commissions in other jurisdictions – most particularly, in New South Wales (‘NSW’) and Queensland – reveals the LRCHK's recommendations generally to be sensible, balanced and progressive. The LRCHK's approach to the question of what it is to consent, and to the issue of how a person withdraws consent, is preferable to that supported by the NSW Law Reform Commission (‘NSWLRC’). Further, it seems right to have supported an objective culpability requirement for the non-consensual offences with which it was concerned. And while there are difficulties concerning certain of the LRCHK's proposals – especially, perhaps, those pertaining to fraudulently procured sexual activity – the NSWLRC's and the Queensland Law Reform Commission's respective approaches to the last mentioned topic also seem imperfect.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"51 1","pages":"145 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reforming non-consensual sexual offences in Hong Kong: How do the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong's proposals compare with recent recommendations in other jurisdictions?\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Dyer, Thomas Crofts\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14737795221116396\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, we consider the reforms to non-consensual sexual offences that the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (‘LRCHK’) has recently advocated in its Final Report about the law relating to sexual offending in that jurisdiction. We argue that a comparison between the LRCHK's proposals and those supported in recent years by Law Reform Commissions in other jurisdictions – most particularly, in New South Wales (‘NSW’) and Queensland – reveals the LRCHK's recommendations generally to be sensible, balanced and progressive. The LRCHK's approach to the question of what it is to consent, and to the issue of how a person withdraws consent, is preferable to that supported by the NSW Law Reform Commission (‘NSWLRC’). Further, it seems right to have supported an objective culpability requirement for the non-consensual offences with which it was concerned. And while there are difficulties concerning certain of the LRCHK's proposals – especially, perhaps, those pertaining to fraudulently procured sexual activity – the NSWLRC's and the Queensland Law Reform Commission's respective approaches to the last mentioned topic also seem imperfect.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common law world review\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"145 - 171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common law world review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795221116396\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795221116396","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们考虑了香港法律改革委员会(“香港法律改革委员会”)最近在其关于该司法管辖区性犯罪法律的最终报告中提出的对非保障性犯罪的改革。我们认为,将LRCHK的建议与其他司法管辖区(尤其是新南威尔士州和昆士兰)的法律改革委员会近年来支持的建议进行比较,可以发现LRCHK提出的建议总体上是明智、平衡和进步的。与新南威尔士州法律改革委员会(“NSWLRC”)支持的方法相比,LRCHK对什么是同意以及一个人如何撤回同意问题的方法更可取。此外,支持对其所涉及的非自愿犯罪的客观罪责要求似乎是正确的。尽管LRCHK的某些提案存在困难,尤其是那些与欺诈性行为有关的提案,但NSWLRC和昆士兰法律改革委员会对最后提到的主题的各自方法似乎也不完美。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reforming non-consensual sexual offences in Hong Kong: How do the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong's proposals compare with recent recommendations in other jurisdictions?
In this article, we consider the reforms to non-consensual sexual offences that the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (‘LRCHK’) has recently advocated in its Final Report about the law relating to sexual offending in that jurisdiction. We argue that a comparison between the LRCHK's proposals and those supported in recent years by Law Reform Commissions in other jurisdictions – most particularly, in New South Wales (‘NSW’) and Queensland – reveals the LRCHK's recommendations generally to be sensible, balanced and progressive. The LRCHK's approach to the question of what it is to consent, and to the issue of how a person withdraws consent, is preferable to that supported by the NSW Law Reform Commission (‘NSWLRC’). Further, it seems right to have supported an objective culpability requirement for the non-consensual offences with which it was concerned. And while there are difficulties concerning certain of the LRCHK's proposals – especially, perhaps, those pertaining to fraudulently procured sexual activity – the NSWLRC's and the Queensland Law Reform Commission's respective approaches to the last mentioned topic also seem imperfect.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信