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;

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.