Cadena temporal

Last updated

Cadena temporal and cadena perpetua were legal punishments. Cadena temporal included imprisonment for at least 12 years and one day, in chains, at hard and painful labor; the loss of many basic civil rights; and subjection to lifetime surveillance. Cadena perpetua is identical except that it is a sentence of life as opposed to a temporary status.

Contents

Terminology

The "title" of the punishment is actually descriptive, as cadena is a Spanish word meaning chain [1] while temporal means impermanent or temporary, in addition to the meaning it shares with English [2] and perpetua, means continuous in Latin and Spanish. [3] [ dubious ]

Philippines

One of the places these punishments were provided for was the Philippine legal system. This was a result of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, which was adopted due to the country having been a Spanish colony until 1898. Cadena temporal was among the penalties repealed in 1932 with the enactment of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

United States

The use of this colonial punishment has been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Weems v. United States , 217 U.S. 349 (1910). [4] Derived from the Spanish penal Code, the punishment of "cadena temporal" was from twelve years and one day to twenty years (arts. 28 and 96), which 'shall be served' in certain 'penal institutions.' And it was provided that 'those sentenced to cadena temporal (and cadena perpetua) shall labor for the benefit of the state. They shall always carry a chain at the ankle, hanging from the wrists; they shall be employed at hard and painful labor, and shall receive no assistance whatsoever from without the institution.' There were, besides, certain accessory penalties imposed with it.

In Weems, the Supreme Court ruled this punishment to be "cruel and unusual" for a crime of "corruptly, and with intent then and there to deceive and defraud the United States government of the Philippine Islands and its officials, falsify[ing] a public and official document." Weems v. United States breaks away with the "historic method" of interpretation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting such penalties. It thus paves the way to a modern interpretation of the Bill of Rights based on a new criterion: the "evolving standards of decency of a maturing society" designed by the Supreme Court in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 (1957) [ citation needed ].

Related Research Articles

Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation.

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment regulating forms of punishment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Amendment serves as a limitation upon the federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted people are to remain in prison either for the rest of their natural lives or indefinetely until pardoned, paroled or otherwise commuted to a fixed term. Crimes for which, in some countries, a person could receive this sentence include murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, torture, apostasy, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, child rape, home invasion, espionage, treason, high treason, drug dealing, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe cases of fraud, severe cases of financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage in English law, and aggravated cases of arson, kidnapping, burglary, or robbery which result in death or grievous bodily harm, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and in certain cases genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, certain war crimes or any three felonies in case of three-strikes law. Life imprisonment can also be imposed, in certain countries, for traffic offenses causing death. Life imprisonment is not used in all countries; Portugal was the first country to abolish life imprisonment, in 1885.

Capital punishment in California Legal penalty in the US state of California

Capital punishment in California is a legal penalty, but at present, it is not allowed to be carried out, because as of March 2019, executions are halted by an official moratorium ordered by Governor Gavin Newsom. Prior to the moratorium, executions were frozen by a federal court order since 2006, and the litigation resulting in the court order has been on hold since the promulgation of the moratorium. Thus, there will be a court-ordered moratorium on executions after the termination of Newsom's moratorium if capital punishment remains a legal penalty in California by then.

Lèse-majesté Offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign

Lèse-majesté, a French term meaning "to do wrong to majesty", is an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. Referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg, the Supreme Court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Capital punishment in India Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging.

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime. In Robinson, the Court struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics.

The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628, was a landmark case in the state of California that outlawed – at least, temporarily – the use of capital punishment. It was subsequently superseded by a 1972 state constitutional amendment, Proposition 17.

The legal age of consent for sexual activity varies by jurisdiction across Asia, ranging from age 9 (Yemen) to age 21. The specific activity engaged in or the gender of participants can also be relevant factors. Below is a discussion of the various laws dealing with this subject. The highlighted age refers to an age at or above which an individual can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another who is also at or above that age. Other variables, such as homosexual relations or close in age exceptions, may exist, and are noted when relevant, for example in Indonesia.

Reclusión perpetua is a type of sentence of imprisonment in the Philippines, Argentina, and several other countries.

The Hultman–Chapman murder case was a murder case that gained wide publicity in the Philippines during the early 1990s because Claudio Teehankee Jr., the perpetrator of the crime, was the son of the late former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee and the brother of former Justice Undersecretary Manuel Teehankee. The case helped sway the public view and lawmakers on crime and restore the death penalty in the Philippines.

Revised Penal Code Criminal code of the Philippines

The Revised Penal Code contains the general penal laws of the Philippines. First enacted in 1930, it remains in effect today, despite several amendments thereto. It does not comprise a comprehensive compendium of all Philippine penal laws. The Revised Penal Code itself was enacted as Act No. 3815, and some Philippine criminal laws have been enacted outside of the Revised Penal Code as separate Republic Acts.

Codification of laws is a common practice in the Philippines. Many general areas of substantive law, such as criminal law, civil law and labor law are governed by legal codes.

Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It is primarily notable as it pertains to the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. It is cited concerning the political and legal relationship between the United States and the Philippines, which at that time was considered a U.S. colony.

In criminal law, a mitigating factor, also known as an extenuating circumstance, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. Unlike a legal defense, the presentation of mitigating factors will not result in the acquittal of a defendant. The opposite of a mitigating factor is an aggravating factor.

Code of Criminal Procedure (India) Code of criminal law of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and provides for a penalty of up to ten years in prison.

References

  1. "SpanishDict Translator". SpanishDict. Retrieved 2021-09-21.
  2. "SpanishDict Translator". SpanishDict. Retrieved 2021-09-21.
  3. "Results for query "perpetua"". humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk. Retrieved 2021-09-21.
  4. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved 2021-09-21.

Further reading