MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000289789 · doi:10.30970/vla.2015.61.248

AVOIDING OF SERVING PUNISHMENTS (THE PROBLEMSOF RESPONSIBILITY OF JURIDICAL PERSON)

2015· article· en· W3000289789 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVisnyk of the Lviv University Series Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)UkrainianLegislationRelevance (law)Criminal responsibilityPolitical scienceLawCriminal lawSociologyCriminologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem aspects of admission the juridical person as the subject of the criminal responsibility have been investigated in this article. As the author says, ukrainian scientists have been discussing the relevance of bringing such person to criminal responsibility according to the Ukrainian legislation and the realities of practice for decades. In this direction they analyzed and relied on international experience. In particular, of such countries as USA, Great Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Moldova, Denmark, Switzerland and others, where the juridical person was considered and is considered as the subject of criminal responsibility. The author states, that the discussion of admission the juridical person as the subject of the criminal responsibility in Ukraine hasn’t found a common approach to resolve it. In the doctrine of criminal law two groups of scientists with opposite looks and suggestions in relation to the decision of this issue are formed: first - opponents of admission the juridical person as the subject of crime and the subject of criminal responsibility (O. Okhman, M. Mychko, V. Tatsiy, T. Batrachenko and others), second - supporters of establishing of the criminal responsibility of the juridical person (V. Htyshchuk, O. Mykhaylov, S. Kelina, L. Shekhovtsova, A. Kozlov, O. Paseka etc.) But the changes to the current legislation show that ukrainian lawmaker hasn’t established de jure such independent subspecies of the criminal responsibility as the criminal responsibility of the juridical person. Such conclusion was done, in particular, on the basis of the detailed analysis and differentiation of concepts «subject of crime» and «subject of criminal responsibility». Corresponding arguments are brought by the author. It is considered that if a crime is committed by a natural person as authorized person of juridical person, the last must be responsibility for the result of that act. A juridical person cannot be unpunished in this case. And as a juridical person is not allotted and cannot be allotted with such general signs of subject of crime as sanity and age of criminal responsibility we cannot speak about it as a compulsory element of the crime – subject of crime. Based on the above, the author doesn’t recognize the juridical person as the subject of the crimes that consist in avoiding serving punishments not connected with the isolation of person. Such conclusion swims out both from the analysis of general signs of subject of crime and from the detailed researching of criminally - legal norms that envisage the possibility of application to the juridical person the measures under criminal law. Therefore, it is concluded that today a juridical person can be considered only as the subject of responsibility, but not to be the subject of crime. The crimes that consist in avoiding serving punishments not connected with the isolation of person can be commited only by natural person. And only it can be a subject of such crimes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it