Anotação, numa perspectiva de Direito Penal e de Criminologia, ao Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (português), de 13 de Abril de 2009 [Juiz Conselheiro Rodrigues da COSTA (Relator), Juiz Conselheiro Arménio SOTTOMAYOR (vencido nos termos da declaração junta) e Juiz Conselheiro Mota MIRANDA] - são o «lenocínio» e a prostituição, entre adultos livres, crimes? «Roxanne, you don't have to put on the red light»

Resumo: 1 – Sumário do Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 13 de Abril de 2011; 2 – Texto completo do Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 13 de Abril de 2009, Juiz Conselheiro Rodrigues da COSTA (Relator), Juiz Conselheiro Arménio SOTTOMAYOR (vencido nos termos da declaração junta) e Juiz Conselheiro Mota MIRANDA: cfr. http://www.dgsi.pt , 26 de Abril de 2011; 3 – Anotação; 3.1 – Introdução à anotação; 3.2 – A questão do suposto «bem jurídico» que seria tutelado pelo crime de «lenocínio» p.p.p.p.p. 169.º do código penal português; 3.2.1 – Ainda a questão do suposto «bem jurídico» que seria tutelado pelo crime de «lenocínio» p.p.p.p.p. 169.º do código penal português: uma maior procura e concretização jurídica e científica; 4 – Conclusões; § Abstract: 1 - Summary of the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Justice, 13 of April of 2011; 2 - Complete text of the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Justice, 13 of April of 2009, Advising Judge Rodrigues da COSTA (Reporter), Advising Judge Arménio SOTTOMAYOR (looser in the terms of the together declaration) and Advising Judge Mota MIRANDA: cfr. http://www.dgsi.pt , 26 of April of 2011; 3 - Notation; 3.1 - Introduction to the notation; 3.2 - The question of the presumption «legally protected interest» that would be tutored person for the crime of «pimpery (“pimping”)» p.p.p.p.p. 169.º of the Portuguese criminal code; 3.2.1 - Still the question of the presumption «legally protected interest» that would be tutored person for the crime of «pimpery» («pimping») p.p.p.p.p. 169.º of the Portuguese criminal code: a bigger search and legal and scientific concretion; 4 - Conclusions;

«Corruption» and social and economic criminal law: criminology, criminal policy, political science and law&economics - a new idea about criminal liability of legal entities

Abstract: If we think there is a significant number of legal offshore in the globalized world, then there is not even a global consensus about what «corruption» is. The «illegal corruption» in a country may be legal in another. Moreover, the great global corruption is above the law or above democratic States. And not all democratic States are «Rule of Law». Therefore, the solution is global earlier in time and space law, democratic, free and true law. While the human being does not reach a consensus of what «corruption» really is, the discussion will not go further than a caricature. One of the other problems about «corruption» is that it is very difficult to establish the imputation of crimes, including «corruption» (v.g. Portugal) on some «companies», corporations. We have a juridical problem in the composition of the art. 11. of the Portuguese Penal Code.

Annotation taken, in the perspective of criminal and constitutional law, as well as in criminology, to the decision of the portuguese constitutional court, of January 13, 2011 – with respect to the problems of “consent” and “medical act”

1 – Summary of the decision taken by the Portuguese Constitutional Court, of January 13, 2011; 2 – Complete text of the decision of the Portuguese Constitutional Court, of January 13, 2011, Judge Maria João ANTUNES (Reporter), Judge Carlos Pamplona de OLIVEIRA, Judge José Borges SOEIRO, Judge Gil GALVÃO, Judge Rui Manuel Moura RAMOS (President) –in terms of the tribunalconstitucional.pt, August 1, 2011; 3 – Brief annotation to the problem of the “medical act”; 3.1 – Plus some conclusions on the brief annotation to the problem of the “medical act”; 3.2 – Brief annotation to the problem of “consent”– continuation of the previous comments; 4 – Conclusions. It must never be forgotten that “consent” does not stand as the only cause of exclusion of unlawfulness.

Financial and Criminal Responsibility for Public Funds – Protection of the Constitutional Fundamental Social Law of Health

Abstract: The implementation of Fundamental Constitutional Health and Social Rights is necessary, appropriate and proportionate, following the demands of the population. Accountability and self-responsibility play a very important role. This requires the development of constitutional principles that protect public funds against corruption and offer a constitutional right to health protection. Financial and criminal liability might provide an incentive to improve the management of public funds and reinforce fundamental constitutional principles, particularly regarding the right to health. Constitutional, administrative and criminal issues, as well as public management and administration and the science of good governance, should be articulated in a single strategy also in the health sector. In Portugal and Brazil, as examples, the Federal Court / Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court / High Court of Justice or the Court of Auditors should be considered together.

Criminal Liability of Organizations, Corporations, Legal Persons, and Similar Entities on Law of Portuguese Cybercrime: A Brief Discussion on the Issue of Crimes of “False Information,” the “Damage on Other Programs or Computer Data,” the “Computer-Software Sabotage,” the “Illegitimate Access,” the “Unlawful Interception,” and “Illegitimate Reproduction of the Protected Program”

Abstract: in Portugal, and in much of the legal systems of Europe, «legal persons» are likely to be criminally responsibilities also for cybercrimes. Like for example the following crimes: «false information»; «damage on other programs or computer data»; «computer-software sabotage»; «illegitimate access»; «unlawful interception» and «illegitimate reproduction of protected program». However, in Portugal, have many exceptions. Exceptions to the «question of criminal liability» of «legal persons». Some «legal persons» can not be blamed for cybercrime. The legislature did not leave! These «legal persons» are v.g. the following («public entities»): legal persons under public law, which include the public business entities; entities utilities, regardless of ownership; or other legal persons exercising public powers. In other words, and again as an example, a Portuguese public university or a private concessionaire of a public service in Portugal, can not commit (in Portugal) any one of cybercrime pointed. Fair? Unfair. All laws should provide that all legal persons can commit cybercrimes. PS: resumo do artigo em inglês.