Culturally Motivated Crimes: the Cultural Test in the Italian Jurisprudence. A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: 1. Key terms and definitions - 2. Two ways to look at culturally motivated crimes: the case of the kirpan in the Italian and in the Canadian jurisprudence - 3. Moving forward: the Italian Court of Cassation n. 29613/2018 - 3.1. Cultural tests: a comparative insight - 3.2. The cultural test in the Italian judgment of 2018 - 4. Final remarks. ABSTRACT: The aim of this article is to analyze culturally motivated crimes with a comparative focus and a case law approach. First of all, a set of definitions is given to have a common and shared understanding of the topic at stake. What is culture and what do we mean by culturally motivated crimes? Secondly, a comparative case-law study helps to focus the possible different solutions given to the cultural factor in criminal law. In fact, some legal systems -such as the Canadian one - appear to be more willing than others to make concrete accommodations of cultural differences. Lastly, the latest Italian Court of Cassation suggests a possible direction to be taken to better treat culturally motivated crimes in today’s multicultural society. What does it mean for criminal law to be culturally sensitive? How can courts take into consideration cultural factors through a proper legal method? These are the main questions on which criminal doctrine has focused its attention trying to reshape a criminal model which can be responsive to those different cultural values, needs and interests.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".