Vandeviver, Christophe

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Christophe Vandeviver – Ghent Uni.1. Conflict theory and the construction of criminal law2. Methodology3. The law of 20 December 2006A. ContentB. Discussion in the Chamber of RepresentativesC. Discussion in the Senate4. AnalysisA. Underlying principlesB. Conflict as the driving force of criminal law constructionC. Social groups and the content of criminal lawD. Criminal law for the protection of economic interestsE. Criminal law as a confirmation of positions of powerF. The construction of consensus and the legitimization of penalization5. Conclusion23-11-2010 2A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 CHAMBLISS, W. (1976). The State and Criminal Law. In W. Chambliss & M. Mankoff (eds), Whose Law. What Order? A Conflict Approach to Criminology (pp. 66-106). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Construction of criminal law is complex and rooted in the unequal distribution of power and ensuing conflict23-11-2010 3A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Distribution of power & construction of criminal law Classes that control the economic resources of society are most dominant (e.g. vagrancy laws) Bureaucracies (e.g. American drug laws) Lobby groups (e.g. prohibition)23-11-2010 4A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Conflict & construction of criminal law Latent conflict: social and economical elites safeguard their interests Manifest conflict: polity wants to guard status quo and creates the illusion that  the origin of the conflict is dealt with In between conflicts: social groups with less power will be able to expand their power23-11-2010 5A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Why conflict theory? Specific view on society – social stratification Less deterministic use of key concepts (cf. neomarxist paradigm)▪ Conflict & active role of the powerless▪ Conflict & changing power relations▪ Conflict & uncertain outcome▪ Conflict, the mobilization of bias and the construction of criminal law23-11-2010 6A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Law of 20 December 2006 & all parliamentary proceedings relating to that law Chamber of Representatives & Senate▪ Bill, proposed amendments, record of the discussion in both committees, record of the discussion and passing in both chambers Drawbacks Only official records – no additional research▪ Off the record? Corridor chat? Lobby groups? Media influence? Only one researcher▪ Interpretation issues? No integration of theories23-11-2010 7A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006A. ContentB. Discussion in the Chamber of RepresentativesC. Discussion in the Senate23-11-2010 8A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Stricter punishment of violence committed against certain categories of persons while they actually practice their profession Members of the public authority and public force Certain professional groups Members of personnel from educational institutions  By means of: Introducing new aggravating circumstances Raising the minimum penalty23-11-2010 9A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Assault on members of public authority and public force Include: members of legislative branch; members of the Constitutional Court; magistrates/officers of the public force in active service; ministerial officials; agents of the public authority/public force New aggravating circumstances; aggravated assault23-11-2010 10A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Violence against certain professional groups Include: drivers, (ticket) inspectors and counter clerks of public transportation; mailmen; firemen and members of civil security; paramedics, doctors, pharmacists, nurses and receptionists working at emergency rooms; social workers and psychologists from public services Raising the minimum penalty23-11-2010 11A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Violence against members of the personnel from educational institutions Include: members of the personnel or management from educational institutions; individuals responsible for the reception of pupils in medical-pedagogic institutions; individuals responsible for the prevention or solution of violence at school Raising the minimum penalty23-11-2010 12A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Four important phases:1. The original bill put forward by the Government2. Fifteen amendments3. Discussion in the Committe of Justice of the Chamber of Representatives4. The plenary of the Chamber of Representatives23-11-2010 13A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Phase 1 – Bill of 7 June 2005 Alleged increase of violence against certain professional groups A stricter punishment of violence committed against specific professional groups  can halt this negative trend Only very specific professional groups should enjoy additional protection▪ Include: drivers, (ticket) inspectors and counter clerks of public transportation; mailmen; firemen and members of civil security; paramedics, doctors, pharmacists, nurses and receptionists working at emergency rooms; social workers and psychologists from public services; members of the personnel or management from educational institutions and individuals responsible for the prevention or solution of violence at school.23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 14 Phase 2 – Amendments Vulnerable position of police officers Individuals responsible for the reception of pupils in medical-pedagogic institutions Public or social service workers in general Manslaughter23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 15 Phase 3 – Committee of Justice Discussion▪ Vulnerable position of police officers: pro-discourse >< counter discourse Only two amendments are passed▪ Members of the public force and authority▪ Individuals responsible for the reception of pupils in medical-pedagogic institutions In the end, additional criminal protection for police officers is introduced23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 16 Phase 4 – the Plenary Interventions remain limited and aim to emphasize the importance and necessity of the proposed law The law is passed with 131 Yeas, 0 Neas and 4 abstentions23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 17 Three important phases:1. Amendments2. Discussion in the Committee of Justice of the Chamber of Representatives3. The plenary of the Chamber of Representatives23-11-2010 18A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Phase 1 – Amendments Distinction public and private sector Taxi drivers Verbal disrespect Target of violence because of his professional activities23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 19 Phase 2 – Committee of Justice Discussion▪ Bill lives up to the general public’s expectations▪ General and special prevention function of criminal law is being opposed No amendments are passed23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 20 Phase 3 – the Plenary Only a very limited number of interventions Noteworthy: “the Senate is not to amend nor to discuss the bill and should just pass it” The law is passed with 47 Yeas, 0 Neas and 9 abstentions and send back to the Chamber of Representatives where it will be passed withunanimity23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 21A. Underlying principlesB. Conflict as the driving force of the construction of criminal lawC. Social groups and the content of criminal lawD. Criminal law for the protection of economic interestsE. Criminal law as a confirmation of positions of powerF. The construction of consensus and the legitimization of penalization23-11-2010 22A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Central idea: violence is unacceptable Violence against certain professional groupsand/or members of the public force is even more objectionable Latent idea: safeguarding certain sectors of society Need for adequate protection General and special prevention of criminal law?23-11-2010 23A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Violent conflict as immediate cause “Professional groups are increasingly confronted with physical violence” (Minister for Justice) Conflict at political level Legislative branch >< executive branch Majority >< opposition23-11-2010 24A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 Economic sections of society Bus drivers, nurses and teachers Personnel from medical-pedagogic institutions Taxi drivers  State bureaucracies – law enforcement agencies The bar23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 25 Negative economic consequences Long-term absences More investments Need for “positive apprecation”23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 26 Stricter punishment of assault on members of public authority and public force Apparent unwillingness to adopt additional criminal protection for the police Amendments Déom23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 27 Ex post construction of consensus on the need of criminal law? Ex ante construction of consensus! Law lives up to a certain need in society Law matches the public opinion’s expectancy More safety without affecting anyone’s liberties23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 28 Double goal of this presentation Deliver insights and understandings in the construction of criminal law Continue challenge criminologists to pay more attention to the construction of criminal law23-11-2010 A Conflict Theoretical Analysis of the Law of 20 December 2006 29

A critical theoretical approach to the amendment of the Belgian penal code of 20 December 2006 with a view of a stricter punishment of violence committed against certain categories of persons

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/1892586/file/1895035

A critical theoretical approach to the amendment of the Belgian penal code of 20 December 2006 with a view of a stricter punishment of violence committed against certain categories of persons

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography