«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.

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.

The host-tourist interaction in a world heritage site: the case of Guimarães

Guimarães, in the northwest of Portugal, is a city of strong symbolic and cultural significance and its nomination by UNESCO as world heritage, in 2001, enlarged its tourism potential. In this paper we present a few results of a survey that envisaged capturing the Guimarães residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts and their attitudes towards tourists. Specifically, one analyzes the type of relationship that exists between some socio-demographic groups and the perceived tourism impacts, as well as their socio-characteristics and the existing level of interaction between residents and tourists. The survey was implemented between January and March 2010 to a convenience sample of 540 inhabitants of the municipality of Guimarães resulting in 400 questionnaires with complete data. For this, we made use of various statistical techniques. Using a factorial analysis, we can conclude that the three factors used explain 52.3% of the variance contained in the original variables obtained from the survey. By another side, using a logit model in the analysis and taking as the dependent variable the frequent or very frequent contact with tourists, we found that only the variables referred to perceived positive impacts of tourism, education and the place of residence in urban areas have shown to be statistically significant. We are aware of the multiple ways the issue of residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism can be approached and of the difficulties to get useful policy-oriented insights. This paper is a step in that trail.

Anotação, numa perspectiva de Direito Penal Constitucional, de Criminologia e de Política Criminal, de alguns dos aspectos do Acórdão do Tribunal Constitucional (português) n.º 353/2012, de 5 de Julho de 2012 - o problema da legítima defesa de bens jurídicos individuais e bens jurídicos colectivos, bens jurídicos supra-individuais e/ou bens jurídicos comunitários no meio do Estado de Direito e do Estado Social

o Acórdão do Tribunal Constitucional português n.º 353/2012, de 5 de Julho de 2012, ao declarar a respectiva inconstitucionalidade com força obrigatória geral, colocou em evidência a existência de bens jurídicos individuais e bens jurídicos colectivos, bens jurídicos supra-individuais, bens jurídicos comunitários. Bens jurídicos estes que devem e têm que ser tutelados e protegidos. A legítima defesa pode existir quer em relação à agressão actual e ilícita de bens jurídicos individuais, quer em relação à agressão actual e ilícita de bens jurídicos colectivos, bens jurídicos supra-individuais e/ou bens jurídicos comunitários? Parte muito substancial e importante da Doutrina indica que sim. Mas, então, como reagir, no contexto da hipotética legítima defesa, face à eventual agressão actual e ilícita dos bens jurídicos tutelados, agora com valor reforçado, pelo próprio Tribunal Constitucional? E qual o papel do direito constitucional de resistência? Este artigo pretende fornecer um muito breve contributo para a solução das correspondentes questões. A questão dos Direitos Fundamentais, o Desenvolvimento e a modernidade. § the Sentence of the (Portuguese) Constitutional Court n. 353/2012 of July 5, 2012, declaring its generally binding unconstitutionality, has highlighted the existence of individual legal goods and collective legal goods, supra-individual legal goods, community legal goods. These legal goods, that should and must be defended and protected. Legitimate defense can be either relative to the current and illicit aggression to individual legal goods, whether in relation to the current and illicit aggression to collective legal goods, supra-individual legal goods or community legal goods? Very substantial and important part of the Doctrine would appear so. But then how to respond, in the context of hypothetical self-defense, in the face of possible current and illicit aggression of the protected legal goods, now with enhanced value, by the Constitutional Court? And what is the role of the constitutional right of resistance? This article is intended to provide a very brief contribution to the solution of the corresponding questions. The question of Fundamental Rights, Development and modernity.