La proporcionalidad de la pena accesoria de multa impuesta en sentencia dictada por el Tribunal de Garantías Penales con Sede en el cantón Quito, Provincia de Pichincha, a los sancionados por el delito de violación cometido en el cantón San Miguel de los Bancos, durante el año 2018.
The research carried out in this article is intended to provide reasoning that shows such as the penalty of a fine; on the one hand, it transcends the person of the sentenced person and, on the other, they do not contribute to the reform and rehabilitation of the sentenced person, considering that t...
Պահպանված է:
| Հիմնական հեղինակ: | |
|---|---|
| Ձևաչափ: | article |
| Հրապարակվել է: |
2020
|
| Խորագրեր: | |
| Առցանց հասանելիություն: | http://repositorio.iaen.edu.ec/handle/24000/6138 |
| Ցուցիչներ: |
Ավելացրեք ցուցիչ
Չկան պիտակներ, Եղեք առաջինը, ով նշում է այս գրառումը!
|
Ավելացրեք ցուցիչ | Ամփոփում: | The research carried out in this article is intended to provide reasoning that shows such as the penalty of a fine; on the one hand, it transcends the person of the sentenced person and, on the other, they do not contribute to the reform and rehabilitation of the sentenced person, considering that the paradigm of rights and justice promulgated in the 2008 Constitution protects the effective enjoyment of rights and guarantees. established in the constitutional norm and international human rights instruments. Therefore, in order to better understand it, it was necessary to determine whether the accessory penalty of a fine ordered in a sentence by the Court of Criminal Guarantees with headquarters in the Quito canton, Pichincha province, to those punished for the crime of rape committed in the canton San Miguel de los Bancos, is proportional to the material capacity of the sentenced person. Thus, the jurisprudential mode adopted in this research allowed us to face the facts with the normative legal practice, the institutions and the legal system adopted in our legal system in criminal matters. As a result of the analyzed sample, it appears that the penalty of a fine imposed is disproportionate, by virtue of the prevailing normative positivism in the decisions of the judges, that is to say that the sentences analyzed do not observe, on the one hand, the principle of proportionality established in the constitutional norm and, on the other, contravene the postulate of positive general prevention of punishment, consequently, the judgments subject of study do not guarantee the right to effective judicial protection of convicted persons. |
|---|