Sentencing Guidelines, Judicial Discretion, And Social Values

This paper studies the institutional structure of criminal sentencing, focusing on the interaction between legislatures, which set sentencing ranges ex ante, and judges, who choose actual sentences from within those ranges ex post. The key question concerns the optimal degree of judicial discretion, given the sequential nature of the process and the possibly divergent interests of legislatures and judges regarding the social function of criminal punishment. The enactment of sentencing reform in the 1970s and 80s provides both a context for the model and an opportunity to evaluate its conclusions.

Market institutions and judicial rulemaking

Assuming that the degree of discretion granted to judges was the main distinguishing feature between common and civil law until the 19th century, we argue that constraining judicial discretion was instrumental in protecting freedom of contract and developing the market order in civil law. We test this hypothesis by analyzing the history of Western law. In England, a unique institutional balance between the Crown and the Parliament guaranteed private property and prompted the gradual evolution towards a legal framework that facilitated market relationships, a process that was supported by the English judiciary. On the Continent, however, legal constraints on the market were suppressed in a top-down fashion by the founders of the liberal state, often against the will of the incumbent judiciary. Constraining judicial discretion there was essential for enforcing freedom of contract and establishing the legal order of the market economy. In line with this evidence, our selection hypothesis casts doubts on the normative interpretation of empirical results that proclaim the superiority of one legal system over another, disregarding the local conditions and institutional interdependencies on which each legal system was grounded.

Conscience, discretion and the creation of property rights

This paper considers the utility of the concept of conscience or unconscionable conduct as a contemporary rationale for intervention in two principles applied where a person seeks to renege on an informal agreement relating to land: the principle in Rochefoucauld v Boustead; and transfers 'subject to' rights in favour of a claimant. By analysing the concept in light of our current understanding of the nature of judicial discretion and the use of general principles, it responds to arguments that unconscionability is too general a concept on which to base intervention. In doing so, it considers the nature of the discretion that is actually in issue when the court intervenes through conscience in these principles. However, the paper questions the use of constructive trusts as a response to unconscionability. It argues that there is a need, in limited circumstances, to separate the finding of unconscionability from the imposition of a constructive trust. In these limited circumstances, once unconscionability is found, the courts should have a discretion as to the remedy, modelled on that developed in the context of proprietary estoppel. The message underlying this paper is that many of the concerns expressed about unconscionability that have led to suggestions of alternative rationales for intervention can in fact be addressed whilst retaining an unconscionability analysis. Unconscionability remains a preferable rationale for intervention as it provides a common thread that links apparently separate principles and can assist our understanding of their scope.

Legislação e judiciatura: o lugar da lei na realização judicial do direito

O presente trabalho questiona o papel da legislação na realização judicial do direito. Para responder a essa questão, empreende-se uma tese conceitual sobre a dinâmica jurídica, que pretende superar a tradicional dicotomia entre a legislação e a função judicial concebida pela doutrina clássica da separação dos poderes. De acordo com a argumentação desenvolvida aqui, o judiciário julga não somente fatos dos casos, mas também as próprias escolhas legislativas, de modo que já não é possível defender que a função judicial consiste em mera declaração da lei nos casos particulares ou ainda em subsunção lógica das lides que lhe são submetidas às normas previamente postas pelo processo legislativo. Assim, a realização judicial do direito não pode ser anteriormente determinada, uma vez que não está condicionada pelo conteúdo legislado. Contudo, os conteúdos da lei transmitem algum sentido para os cidadãos e, por isso, criam expectativas. Confirmar ou não essas expectativas é uma questão relacionada com a justificação e a legitimidade dos Estados racionais modernos, que estabelecem com os cidadãos uma relação de dominação legal-racional. Desse modo, a questão do papel da legislação (direito positivo passado) na realização do direito atual é posta em termos de legitimidade. Se, de um lado, constatamos que não é possível pretender controlar a discricionariedade judicial dentro dos próprios limites do direito, de outro lado defendemos que é legítimo pretender submeter o direito positivo à crítica e ao controle democrático. Isso porque interessa a todos os cidadãos que as decisões judiciais possam ser justificadas de modo razoável, graças a uma argumentação cuja força e a pertinência se reconheçam amplamente na sociedade. A partir dessa perspectiva, propomos um redimensionamento do argumento legal na prática jurídica e passamos a analisar as diversas implicações da questão central posta neste trabalho na realização judicial do direito.

Common law and civil law as pro-market adaptations

We argue that in the development of the Western legal system, cognitive departures are themain determinant of the optimal degree of judicial rule-making. Judicial discretion, seen here as the main distinguishing feature between both legal systems, is introduced in civil law jurisdictions to protect, rather than to limit, freedom of contract against potential judicial backlash. Such protection was unnecessary in common law countries, where free-market relations enjoyed safer judicial ground mainly due to their relatively gradual evolution, their reliance on practitioners as judges, and the earlier development of institutional checks and balances that supported private property rights. In our framework, differences in costs and benefits associated with self-interest and lack of information require a cognitive failure to be active.

Judges' cognition and market order

We argue that during the crystallization of common and civil law in the 19th century, the optimal degree of discretion in judicial rulemaking, albeit influenced by the comparative advantages of both legislative and judicial rulemaking, was mainly determined by the anti-market biases of the judiciary. The different degrees of judicial discretion adopted in both legal traditions were thus optimally adapted to different circumstances, mainly rooted in the unique, market-friendly, evolutionary transition enjoyed by English common law as opposed to the revolutionary environment of the civil law. On the Continent, constraining judicial discretion was essential for enforcing freedom of contract and establishing a market economy. The ongoing debasement of pro-market fundamentals in both branches of the Western legal system is explained from this perspective as a consequence of increased perceptions of exogenous risks and changes in the political system, which favored the adoption of sharing solutions and removed the cognitive advantage of parliaments and political leaders.

¿Pueden los juzgadores penales inaplicar el Código Penal? (Tema Central)

¿Un juez penal puede inaplicar una disposición del código penal o del procedimiento penal? En general, por el principio de legalidad, no. Sin embargo, la jurisprudencia y la doctrina han demostrado que sí se puede inaplicar normas penales, cuando éstas no están adecuadas a los principios constitucionales. El desarrollo del derecho constitucional ha modificado sustancialmente los presupuestos de la teoría del derecho. Entre otros, el juez crea derecho y puede, interpretativamente, inobservar normas legales. Este poder, que se llama control difuso y tiene que ser utilizado de forma prudente y de acuerdo a preceptos de argumentación jurídica. En este ensayo se describen estos preceptos y se presentan y comentan algunos casos en que principios de la Constitución (derechos humanos) han prevalecido sobre tipos penales, cuando la aplicación de la ley penal lleva a un resultado injusto.

Sentencia de casación respecto de las actuaciones de las administraciones tributarias vinculadas a actos administrativos impugnados judicialmente (Jurisprudencia)

En ocasiones las administraciones tributarias han errado en la comprensión del contenido y alcance de la facultad determinadora. Al constituir una actividad reglada, la determinación tributaria debe observar rigurosamente las normas relativas a materia, oportunidad y competencia. La sentencia materia de la presente recensión se refiere precisamente al ejercicio de la facultad determinadora en lo que hace relación con los actos administrativos que se encuentran impugnados judicialmente. Considerando que uno de los efectos de la judicialización del acto administrativo es abstraerlo de la órbita competencial de la administración tributaria, esta no puede ejercer sobre él ninguna de sus facultades, entre ellas, la verificadora. El criterio de juzgamiento analizado confirma este particular, dejando en claro las consecuencias que la impugnación judicial comporta tanto para los actos administrativos como para la administración tributaria.

A individualização da medida cautelar pessoal no processo penal brasileiro

O sistema de medidas cautelares pessoais no processo penal brasileiro não mais gravita em torno da prisão preventiva, uma vez que o legislador instituiu um rol de medidas cautelares menos gravosas, a ela alternativas. Nesse contexto, como deve orientar-se a escolha judicial da medida a ser aplicada ao caso concreto? A constitucional idade de qualquer intervenção no direito fundamental de liberdade depende, essencialmente, de sua fundamentação constitucional, que é controlada a partir da proporcionalidade. A proporcional idade, portanto, é a pedra angular do sistema de medidas cautelares pessoais. A decisão que impõe uma medida cautelar pessoal jamais pode resultar de uma intuição individual misteriosa, senão de um procedimento cognoscitivo estruturado e comprovável de maneira intersubjetiva. Daí a importância da investigação da existência de um direito fundamental do imputado à individualização da medida cautelar pessoal, para afastar qualquer discricionariedade judicial na sua escolha. O objetivo do presente trabalho, portanto, é propor um método racional, baseado no exame da proporcionalidade, para controle intersubjetivo da justificação da decisão judicial que, no processo penal, imponha uma medida cautelar pessoal.

Colonialidade do poder no direito e povos indígenas na América Latina: as faces da subordinação/dominação jurídica frente ao direito de retorno às terras ancestrais dos povos indígenas Kaiowá do Tekohá Laranjeira Ñande‘Rú no Brasil e Mapuche do Lof Temucuicui no Chile

Tese (doutorado)—Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Centro de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação sobre as Américas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos Comparados sobre as Américas, 2016.

EU membership of the WTO: international trade disputes and judicial protection of individuals by EU Courts

The European Union (EU) is embedded in a pluralistic legal context because of the EU and its Member States’ treaty memberships and domestic laws. Where EU conduct has implications for both the EU’s international trade relations and the legal position of individual traders, it possibly affects EU and its Member States’ obligations under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO law) as well as the Union’s own multi-layered constitutional legal order. The present paper analyses the way in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) accommodates WTO and EU law in the context of international trade disputes triggered by the EU. Given the ECJ’s denial of direct effect of WTO law in principle, the paper focuses on the protection of rights and remedies conferred by EU law. It assesses the implications of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) – which tolerates the acceptance of retaliatory measures constraining traders’ activities in sectors different from those subject to the original trade dispute (Bananas and Hormones cases) – for the protection of ‘retaliation victims’. The paper concludes that governmental discretion conferred by WTO law has not affected the applicability of EU constitutional law but possibly shapes the actual scope of EU rights and remedies where such discretion is exercised in the EU’s general interest.