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;

Foucault’s Perspective of Performance Appraisal in Public Administration

The main purpose of performance appraisal in organizations is, or should be, to improve the engagement, learning process and progress of the employees and to align individual with team and organizational performance. However, performance appraisal can also be interpreted as an instrument of normalization, discipline and surveillance. This study thus aims to explore and discuss the complex schema of intrinsic and extrinsic objectives of performance appraisal system of the Portuguese public organizations (SIADAP - Performance Evaluation Integrated System). We have developed an exploratory and qualitative case study to capture appraisers and appraises perceptions. The data were analyzed in light of foucauldian theories. According to the qualitative data, namely the discourses of the appraisers and their subordinates, the SIADAP is seen as an instrument of control and dominance that aims to introduce political rationalities, limiting the career progression of the employees. Though some key points of Foucault’s perspective were identified, foucauldian framework revealed some limitations to capture all the complexity inherent to performance appraisal. This study opens new perspectives about the SIADAP and can be of major importance as far as political reflection about performance appraisal in public organizations is concerned.