Abstract
This chapter aims at assessing whether or not the Code Pénal of 1810 (the Code) bore any influence on the “general part” of the Portuguese Penal Code of 1852 (PC1852)—and, if so, to what extent. To that effect, it is necessary to understand how the reform of the penal laws developed in Portugal from the late 18th century to 1852, the first milestone being the Draft Penal Code authored by Mello Freire and submitted to Queen Maria I in 1786. It is also important to analyse the process in the context of the political and military strife that ravaged the country during the first half of the 19th century, namely the Napoleonic invasions and the constitutional reforms that resulted from the civil war between liberals and absolutists. The general conclusion of our study is that the Code was one of the references that has been taken into account in the reform of the Portuguese criminal law that led to the enactment of the PC1852, along with other foreign laws and the Portuguese legal tradition, and its influence was more felt in the sanctions system than on the other sections of the new code.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The general laws of the Kingdom (Ordenações), including the criminal law, were compiled for the first time in the Ordenações Afonsinas (1446–47), which were later repealed by the Ordenações Manuelinas (1512–21). In 1603, under the rule of King Filipe II of Spain, a third compilation came into force, the Ordenações Filipinas (1603); the criminal law contained therein (Book 5) was in force until as late as 1852.
- 2.
Decree 31 March 1778.
- 3.
Mello Freire’s project was a compromise between the legal structures of the Ancien Régime and the new spirit of the (Italian and French) Enlightenment, whereby the (new) principle of equal treatment and the abolition of torture as a method of obtaining evidence coexisted with the cruelty of the execution of the death penalty in the case of, e.g., high treason: in more detail, see Eduardo Correia, Estudos sobre a Evolução das Penas no Direito Português, vol. I, separata do vol. LIII do Boletim da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra, s/d, p. 67 f.; Maria João Antunes/Pedro Caeiro, “Portugal”, in International Encyclopedia of Laws. Criminal Law, Suppl. 6 (May 1995), Kluwer Law International, The Hague, etc., 1995, p. 24 f. On the relevance of Mello Freire’s project, see also António Hespanha, “Da «Iustitia» à «Disciplina». Textos, Poder e Política Penal no Antigo Regime” in Justiça e Litigiosidade: História e Prospectivas, Lisboa: Gulbenkian, 1993, p. 323 f.; and Frederico de Lacerda da Costa Pinto, A Categoria da Punibilidade na Teoria do Crime, vol I, Coimbra: Almedina, 2013, p. 228 f.
- 4.
See the Decree of 11 January 1802 and Eduardo Correia, Estudos, p. 64.
- 5.
See José António Barreiros, “As instituições criminais em Portugal no século XIX: subsídios para a sua história”, Análise Social 63-3 (1980), p. 589; Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, A Reforma da Justiça Criminal em Portugal e na Europa, Coimbra: Almedina, 2003, p. 81 f.; and Pedro Caeiro, Fundamento, Conteúdo e Limites da Jurisdição Penal do Estado. O Caso Português, Coimbra: Wolters Kluwer/Coimbra Editora, 2010, p. 180 f.
- 6.
As a matter of fact, the judicial praxis had already restricted the use of torture to the most serious offences since the mid-17th century: see Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario ao Codigo Penal Portuguez, vol. I, Lisboa: Typograhia de José Baptista Morando, 1853, p. XV.
- 7.
Articles 10.º and 11.º of the Constitution 1822.
- 8.
Article 145.º, § 17, of the Constitutional Charter 1826.
- 9.
Decree of 4 January 1837.
- 10.
Charter (Carta de Lei) of 27 April 1837.
- 11.
See also Teresa Pizarro Beleza, Direito Penal, vol. 1, 2. ed., Lisboa: AAFDL, 1984, pp. 371–373. The abhorrent nature of the situation was first acknowledged by the Decree 18 August 1832, which created yet another commission to draft a new penal code that might replace “that monstrous penal codification of the Ordenações (…)”. The civil war that ensued prevented the commission from delivering: see Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria do Direito Penal Applicada ao Codigo Penal Portuguez, vol. I, Lisboa; Typographia Universal, 1853, p. LIV.
- 12.
Institutiones Juris Criminalis Lusitani, Liber singularis, Olisipone, Ex Typographia Regalis Academiae, 1794.
- 13.
On this influence, see Zaffaroni, “La influencia del pensamento de Cesare Beccaria sobre la politica criminal en el mundo”, ADPCP 1989, p. 529 f., who stresses the relevance of the works of Mello Freire for the expansion of the Enlightenment in Latin America.
- 14.
Almost seventy years after its publication, Levy Maria Jordão wrote that the draft code Mello Freire was “of great merit for his time and still has much that can be used today”: Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. XVII. See also Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. I, p. LII; and Victor Faveiro, “Melo Freire e a formação do Direito Público nacional”, Ciência e Técnica Fiscal 110 (1968), pp. 89–92.
- 15.
Rui Ramos et al., História de Portugal, Lisboa: Esfera dos Livros, 2009, p. 450.
- 16.
Ibidem, p. 473.
- 17.
Francisco Freire de Mello, Discurso sobre Delictos e Penas, London: T.C. Hansard, 1816.
- 18.
“Ao Mui Alto e Mui Poderoso Príncipe Regente do Reino Unido de Portugal, e do Brazil e Algarves, Pai da Patria”.
- 19.
See Francisco Freire de Mello, Discurso, pp. 34 f. and 58.
- 20.
Lições de Direito Criminal, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1845; Lições de Direito Criminal, Lisboa: Imprensa União-Typographica, 1857, and Lições de Direito Criminal Portuguez, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1861.
- 21.
Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. XXI.
- 22.
See Catherine Fuller, “«Primeiro e mais antigo Constitucional da Europa»: Bentham´s contact with Portuguese liberals 1820–23”, Journal of Bentham Studies, vol. 3 (2000), pp. 1–12.
- 23.
- 24.
Tradução das Obras Políticas do Sábio Jurisconsulto Jeremias Bentham, Vertidas do Inglez na língua Portugueza por Mandado do Soberano Congresso das Cortes Gerais, Extraordinarias e Constituintes da Mesma Nação, Tomos I e II, Lisboa: Na Imprensa Nacional, Anno 1822.
- 25.
On the contrast between the two laws, see the report of the Commission for the Reform of the Code of 1852, authored by Levy Maria Jordão, in Código Penal Portuguez, Tomo I, Relatório da Commissão, Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional, 1861, pp. 7–8.
- 26.
See Levy Maria Jordão Commentario, T. I, p. XVIII. See also Peter Hünerfeld, Strafrechtsdogmatik in Deutschland und Portugal, Nomos, 1981, pp. 42–43, and Manuel Cavaleiro de Ferreira, Direito Penal, pp. 71–72.
In a slightly different direction, Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. I, p. LXII, wrote that “the drafters [of the PC1852] bore always in mind the French and the Spanish Codes, which are easily acknowledgeable as predominant both at a doctrinal and at a literal level”.
- 27.
Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, Tomo I, p. XVIII; in the same direction, Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. I, p. LXII, who deems the opinion of those French scholars to be “abundantly” reflected in the PC1852; Eduardo Correia, Direito Criminal (com a colaboração de J. Figueiredo Dias), Coimbra, 1963, vol I. pp. 106–107; and Manuel Cavaleiro de Ferreira, Direito Penal, p. 72.
- 28.
Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, pp. 3–4. The concept of delito had a different nature in the Portuguese tradition: according to Joaquim José Cateano Pereira e Sousa, Classes dos Crimes por Ordem Systematica, com as Penas correspondentes, segundo a Lei actual, Lisboa, Regia Officina Typografica, 1803, p. 3 (fn. 6), “crime differs from delict [“delicto”] as species from gender. Delict means any violation of the order. There are three sources of delicts: sins, crimes and vices. The violation of the divine order is called a sin. The violation of the civil order, which tends to the detriment of another, is properly called crime. If it concerns ourselves, it is understood as vice”.
- 29.
In more detail, Henriques da Silva, “Crimes, delictos e contravenções”, Estudos Juridicos 5 (1903), p. 402 f. But see, in a different direction and upholding the French system, Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. I, p. 3 f.
- 30.
See Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 402 f., maxime p. 404 f.
- 31.
According to article 1.º of the PC1852, “crime, or delict, is the voluntary act punished by the law”, whereas article 3.º defined contravention as “the voluntary, punishable act, which consists exclusively of the violation or inobservance of the preventative provisions contained in the laws and regulations, irrespective of any maleficent intention”.
- 32.
José de Faria Costa, “A importância da recorrência no pensamento jurídico. Um exemplo: a distinção entre o ilícito penal e o ilícito de mera ordenação social”, in IDPEE (org.), Direito Penal Económico e Europeu, Vol. I, Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 1998, p. 123 and p. 112 f.
- 33.
See Basílio Alberto Sousa Pinto, Lições de Direito Criminal, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1845, p. 373 f.
- 34.
The first articles establish the classification of the offences, the definition of attempt and the prohibition of retroactive application of the criminal law.
- 35.
This type of structure was deemed to be so “natural” that Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 112, produced the following comment: “this system is so natural that the [Portuguese] Code, despite the many flaws in its method, could not but adopt it”. In the same direction, Victor Faveiro, “Melo Freire e a formação do Direito Público nacional”, p. 90. On the relevance, within Mello Freire’s system, of a specific regulation of the criminal act preceding the establishment of the penalties, see Frederico de Lacerda da Costa Pinto, A Categoria da Punibilidade, p. 230 f.
- 36.
Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 47; the comment is made in the context of more concrete criticism regarding the fact that the Portuguese Code established premeditation as a general aggravating circumstance (article 19.º) but did not provide for its definition in general. Instead, it followed the Code in this instance and defined premeditation only in relation to murder, in article 352.º (this provision was, in fact, an ipsis verbis translation of article 297.º of the Code, which also attracted Jordão’s criticism).
- 37.
On this restriction see Chauveau/Hélie, Théorie du Code Pénal, 3. ed., T. I, Paris: Cosse, 1852, p. 447: “(…) de la provocation et de la légitime défense, causes d’excuse ou de justification spéciales aussi pour le meurtre et les coups et blessures, et dont le code ne s’est lui-même occupé qu’a raison de ces crimes”; Id., ibid., T. IV, p. 102: “De ce nombre sont la provocation et la légitime défense, causes d'excuse ou de justification de l'homicide volontaire et des coups ou blessures, et qui n'ont été admises par la loi qu'en ce qui concerne ces deux crimes” (emphasis added).
- 38.
Article 4 of the Code: “Nulle contravention, nul délit, nul crime, ne peuvent être punis de peines qui n’étaient pas prononcées par la loi avant qu’ils fussent commis”.
- 39.
See Chauveau/Hélie, Théorie, p. 33 f.; R. Garraud, Précis de Droit Criminel, 3. ed., Paris: L. Larose et Forcel, 1888, p. 82.
- 40.
Article 1.º: “Crime, or delict, is the voluntary act punished by the law” (emphasis added).
- 41.
Article 5.º: “No act or omission can be deemed an offence if it is not qualified as such by a prior law”.
- 42.
Article 18.º: “It is not permissible to resort to analogy, induction by parity or a fortiori reasoning with a view to qualify an act as an offence; it is always necessary that the essential elements of the offence, as explicitly defined by the law, materialise”.
- 43.
On this subject, see Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, pp. 8, 43–45, 169. The judge had the duty to examine whether or not the act imputed to the defendant contained “the features that constitute the offence as described by the law” (Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. I, p. 24).
- 44.
In more detail, collecting several examples, see Frederico de Lacerda da Costa Pinto, A Categoria da Punibilidade, pp. 150–153.
- 45.
The Author of the draft used the same definition of the offence, at a purely doctrinal level, in his handbook: see Mello Freire, Institutiones Juris Criminalis Lusitani, Titulo I, § II.
- 46.
“If the penalty provided for in our new penal code is more lenient than the penalty stated in the current code, the courts and tribunals will apply the penalties of the new code”.
- 47.
See the last provision at the end of the Code 1791: “Pour tout fait antérieur à la publication du présent code, si le fait est qualifié crime par les lois actuellement existantes, et qu'il ne le soit pas par le présent décret; ou si le fait est qualifié crime par le présent, code, et qu’il ne le soit pas par les.lois existantes, l’accusé sera acquitté, sauf à être correctionnellement puni, s’il y échoit”.
- 48.
On the historical-normative meaning of this solution, see António M. Almeida Costa, Ilícito pessoal, Imputação Objectiva e Comparticipação em Direito Penal, Coimbra: Almedina, 2014, p. 157 e ss.
- 49.
Basílio Alberto Sousa Pinto, Lições de Direito Criminal, pp. 47–51. The solution adopted by the Code was even considered to be “barbaric and inflexible” (Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 204).
- 50.
Jorge de Figueiredo Dias, Direito Penal. Parte Geral. Tomo I, 2. ed., Coimbra, Coimbra Editora, 2007, p. 68 f.
- 51.
The branding with a hot iron, the amputation of the right hand of parricides before the execution of the death penalty, the straightjacket (but not the public exhibition of the criminals convicted to certain penalties: see article 22 of the Code, even after 1832), etc.
- 52.
See supra, I., 2.
- 53.
As a matter of fact, the abolition of these sanctions was already provided for by the liberal Constitution of 1822 (article 11).
- 54.
Article 145.º, § 18, of the Charter: “Flogging, torture, branding with hot iron and all the other cruel penalties are abolished”.
- 55.
Article 145.º, § 19, of the Charter: “No penalty shall affect people other than the convict. Hence, there shall be in no case confiscation of property, nor shall the infamy of the Defendant be transmitted to his relatives, irrespective of the degree”. On “special confiscation”, see infra.
- 56.
See Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 114 f., who deemed the distinction “unjustifiable”; and Jorge de Figueiredo Dias, Direito Penal Português. As Consequências Jurídicas do Crime (Aequitas, 1993), p. 99.
- 57.
The need to differentiate between the “rich and the poor” in the application of fines was already present in the draft Mello Freire (Título III, § 13).
- 58.
In this direction, see Chauveau/Hélie, Théorie, T. I, p. 182.
- 59.
See Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. II, p. 178 f., who questioned the usefulness of this penalty and advocated its abolition.
- 60.
According to Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. I, p. XXXV, “the French revolution and the Codes it produced made the criminal law progress with giant steps; but these results have been mitigated by the Code of 1810, still in force in France, notwithstanding the many modifications introduced by the law of 28 April 1832 and many other laws, and judicial and penitentiary institutions, which make that Code one of the most lapsed, and almost barren, in Europe, in relation to the enforcement of the penalties it provides for, which have already been solemnly declared, by M. Dumon, as vicious”.
- 61.
Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 117 f.; and Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. II, p. 131.
- 62.
However, unlike the Code, the PC1852 did not restrict the scope of expulsion to political offences or set a maximum limit to its duration: see Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. II, p. 156.
- 63.
See Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 164.
- 64.
Eg., in Alvará of 4 June 1825, concerning the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of tax offences (smuggling): see also João Conde Correia, Da Proibição do Confisco à Perda Alargada, Lisboa: INCM, 2012, p. 35 f.
- 65.
Hence, contrary to the suggestion of Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 121, who rightly criticised the Portuguese law for not adopting it, this was not an innovation brought by the Spanish Code. It should be noted that “correctional imprisonment” (“prisão correccional”) in the PC1852 did not include mandatory work, which might explain why article 41 of the Code was not transposed into Portuguese law.
- 66.
Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 64 f.
- 67.
Cfr. articles 18 and 28 f. of the Code. This penalty was criticised by the French and Portuguese literature for lacking proportionality and a significant link to the offences that could prompt its application: see Chauveau/Hélie, Théorie, pp. 124–133 and Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, pp. 147–157; Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. II, p. 237 f.
- 68.
The penalty of “desterro”, unknown to French law, was a sort of intrastate banishment, where the convict was obliged to (or prevented from) residing or staying in certain parts of the country.
- 69.
This measure replicated the “renvoi sous la surveillance de la haute police” (articles 44 f. of the Code).
- 70.
Eg, the age threshold below which the death penalty could not be applied (16 years in the Code, 17 in the PC1852) and the penalty chosen for its replacement (imprisonment for 10–20 years in a correctional facility in the Code, life imprisonment with work in the PC1852—a departure much criticised by the Portuguese literature); the age threshold above which forced labour could not be applied or should cease and be replaced by imprisonment (70 years in the Code, 60 in the PC1852); the inclusion of disabilities, together with age and gender, as a ground for replacement of forced labour; etc.
- 71.
Article 66 of the Code, article 73.º of the PC1852.
- 72.
In the Portuguese case, this consequence was not spelt out in article 73.º: it rather followed from the fact that article 23.º, n.º 3, which had no parallel in the Code, excluded the criminal liability of this category of minors.
- 73.
See Chauveau/Hélie, Théorie, T. I, p. 220; Levy Maria Jordão, Commentario, T. I, p. 174.
- 74.
Which met harsh criticism from Francisco Silva Ferrão, Theoria, vol. III, p. 29.
References
Albuquerque, Paulo Pinto de, A Reforma da Justiça Criminal em Portugal e na Europa (Coimbra: Almedina, 2003).
Antunes, Maria João / Caeiro, Pedro, “Portugal”, in International Encyclopedia of Laws. Criminal Law, Suppl. 6 (May 1995) (The Hague, etc.: Kluwer Law International, 1995).
Barreiros, José António, “As instituições criminais em Portugal no século XIX: subsídios para a sua história”, Análise Social 63-3 (1980).
Beleza, Teresa Pizarro, Direito Penal, vol. 1, 2. ed. (Lisboa: AAFDL, 1984).
Caeiro, Pedro, Fundamento, Conteúdo e Limites da Jurisdição Penal do Estado. O Caso Português (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2010).
Chauveau, Adolphe / Hélie, Faustin, Théorie du Code Pénal, 3. ed., vol. I (Paris: Cosse, 1852).
Correia, Eduardo, Direito Criminal (com a colaboração de J. Figueiredo Dias), vol. I (Coimbra: Almedina, 1963).
Correia, Eduardo, Estudos sobre a Evolução das Penas no Direito Português, vol. I, separata do vol. LIII do Boletim da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra, s/d.
Correia, João Conde, Da Proibição do Confisco à Perda Alargada, Lisboa: INCM, 2012.
Costa, António M. Almeida, Ilícito pessoal, Imputação Objectiva e Comparticipação em Direito Penal (Coimbra: Almedina, 2014).
Costa, José de Faria, “A importância da recorrência no pensamento jurídico. Um exemplo: a distinção entre o ilícito penal e o ilícito de mera ordenação social”, in IDPEE (org.), Direito Penal Económico e Europeu, vol. I, p. 109 f. (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 1998).
Dias, Jorge de Figueiredo, Direito Penal Português. As Consequências Jurídicas do Crime (Lisboa: Aequitas, 1993).
Dias, Jorge de Figueiredo, Direito Penal. Parte Geral. Tomo I, 2. ed. (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2007).
Faveiro, Victor, “Melo Freire e a formação do Direito Público nacional”, Ciência e Técnica Fiscal 110 (1968), p. 71 f.
Ferrão, Francisco Silva, Theoria do Direito Penal Applicada ao Codigo Penal Portuguez, vol. I (Lisboa: Typographia Universal, 1853).
Ferreira, Manuel Cavaleiro de, Direito Penal Português, Parte Geral, vol. I, (Lisboa: Verbo, 1982).
Freire, Pascoal José de Mello, Ensaio do Codigo Criminal a que mandou proceder a rainha D. Maria I (…), oferece e dedica Miguel Setáro (Lisboa: Typ. Maigrense: 1823); the second edition was published in the same year under the title Codigo Criminal intentado pela Rainha D. Maria I. Autor Pascoal José de Mello Freire, 2. ed. (Lisboa: Typ. Simão Thaddeo Ferreira, 1823).
Freire, Pascoal José de Mello, Institutiones Juris Criminalis Lusitani, Liber singularis (Olisipone: Ex Typographia Regalis Academiae, 1794).
Fuller, Catherine, “«Primeiro e mais antigo Constitucional da Europa»: Bentham´s contact with Portuguese liberals 1820–23”, Journal of Bentham Studies, vol. 3 (2000), p. 1 f.
Garraud, R., Précis de Droit Criminel, 3. ed. (Paris: L. Larose et Forcel, 1888).
Hespanha, António, “Da «Iustitia» à «Disciplina». Textos, Poder e Política Penal no Antigo Regime” in Justiça e Litigiosidade: História e Prospectivas (Lisboa: Gulbenkian 1993).
Hünerfeld, Peter, Strafrechtsdogmatik in Deutschland und Portugal (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1981).
Jordão, Levy Maria, Commentario ao Codigo Penal Portuguez, vol. I (Lisboa: Typograhia de José Baptista Morando, 1853).
Jordão, Levy Maria, [Report of the Commission for the Reform of the Code of 1852], in Código Penal Portuguez. Vol I, Relatório da Commissão (Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional, 1861).
Mello, Francisco Freire de, Discurso sobre Delictos e Penas (London: T.C. Hansard, 1816).
Pinto, Basílio Alberto de Sousa, Lições de Direito Criminal (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1845); Lições de Direito Criminal (Lisboa: Imprensa União-Typographica, 1857); Lições de Direito Criminal Portuguez (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1861).
Pinto, Frederico de Lacerda da Costa, A Categoria da Punibilidade na Teoria do Crime, vol I (Coimbra: Almedina, 2013).
Ramos, Rui, et al., História de Portugal (Lisboa: Esfera dos Livros, 2009).
Sêcco, Henriques, “Da historia do direito criminal portuguez desde os mais remotos tempos”, Revista de Legislação e Jurisprudência 4 (1871/1872).
Silva, Henriques da, “Crimes, delictos e contravenções”, Estudos Juridicos 5 (1903).
Sousa, Joaquim José Cateano Pereira e, Classes dos Crimes por Ordem Systematica, com as Penas correspondentes, segundo a Lei actual (Lisboa: Regia Officina Typografica, 1803).
Zaffaroni, Eugenio Raúl, “La influencia del pensamento de Cesare Beccaria sobre la politica criminal en el mundo”, ADPCP 1989, p. 521 f.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Lacerda da Costa Pinto, F., Caeiro, P. (2018). The Influence of the French Penal Code of 1810 Over the “General Part” of the Portuguese Penal Code of 1852: The Visible and the Invisible. In: Masferrer, A. (eds) The Western Codification of Criminal Law . Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71912-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71912-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71911-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71912-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)