De la caricia al puñal. Dos casos de parricidios en Rosario (1874/1898)
Cargando...
Fecha
Authors
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Humanidades y Artes. Centro de Estudios Sobre Diversidad Cultural
Resumen
Descripción
Los casos judiciales analizados permiten observar diversas estrategias utilizadas en el espacio penal y en el ámbito de la medicina legal a la hora de evaluar casos de locos/delincuentes. Se examina el problema de la responsabilidad, donde se repasa el tratamiento dado a la locura por la legislación, la competencia de peritos/médicos en el examen del procesado y el fundamento de las sentencias judiciales. Se analizan los discursos implicado en los casos, distinguiendo entre voces inteligentes -discursos que emanan de funcionario poseedores de una palabra “autorizada” (jueces, fiscales) o que ejercen una profesión reconocida (abogados, médicos) -y voces especialistas -la figura del “peirto”como intérprete indiscutido en virtud de la posesión de un saber especializado -que emiten juicio sobre el loco/delincuente. Se analiza el castigo que le correspondió a cada cual: por “peligroso”-según el paradigma positivista que mide la responsabilidad por el grado de saludo de que gozaba la persona al momento del crimen- Bustos, sufrió el internamiento; por “culpable”-según el paradigma clásico para el cual la responsabilidad depende del grado de conocimiento y libertad- Boyer mereció la pena última.
The judicial cases analyzed allow to consider diverse strategies used in the criminal space and the medicine-legal space to evaluate cases of mads/criminals. Examined the problem of responsibility, revising: the treatment given that madness by legislation; the competence of experts/doctors to evaluate accusers; and the foundation of sentences. Analyze speeches involved in the cases, differencing between “intelligent” voices -speeches come from officials with an “authorized” word (judges, prosecutors) or with a recognized profession (lawyers, doctors)- and “specialists” voices -the figure of “experts” like the unquestionable interpreter because of the possession of an specific knowledge- who emit judgment about the mads/criminals. Consider the punishment which correspond to each other: by “dangerous” -according to the positive paradigm which measures the responsibility by the grade of health to enjoy the person at the moment of the crime- Bustos suffered the internment; by “guilty” -according to the classic paradigm which measures the responsibility by the degree of knowledge and freedom- Boyer deserved the maxim punishment.
The judicial cases analyzed allow to consider diverse strategies used in the criminal space and the medicine-legal space to evaluate cases of mads/criminals. Examined the problem of responsibility, revising: the treatment given that madness by legislation; the competence of experts/doctors to evaluate accusers; and the foundation of sentences. Analyze speeches involved in the cases, differencing between “intelligent” voices -speeches come from officials with an “authorized” word (judges, prosecutors) or with a recognized profession (lawyers, doctors)- and “specialists” voices -the figure of “experts” like the unquestionable interpreter because of the possession of an specific knowledge- who emit judgment about the mads/criminals. Consider the punishment which correspond to each other: by “dangerous” -according to the positive paradigm which measures the responsibility by the grade of health to enjoy the person at the moment of the crime- Bustos suffered the internment; by “guilty” -according to the classic paradigm which measures the responsibility by the degree of knowledge and freedom- Boyer deserved the maxim punishment.
Palabras clave
Citación
Colecciones
Aprobación
Revisión
Complementado por
Referenciado por
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/