La imputabilidad restringida en los procesos de terminación anticipada ¿Es posible su aplicación al amparo de la Ley Nro. 30838?

• Autor: Conga Palomino, Maria Luisa Genoveva
• Formato: tesis de maestría
• Fecha de Publicación: 2024
• Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Repositorio: PUCP-Tesis
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/29953
• Enlace del recurso: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/29953
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Igualdad ante la ley; Derecho penal--Legislación--Perú; Procedimiento penal--Perú; Sentencias--Legislación--Perú; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.02

The general objective of this investigation was to analyze whether it was possible to admit the foundations of the non-application of the second paragraph of article 22 of the Penal Code in article 5 of Law No. 30838 on the prohibition of the application of Early Termination, of There, the general research question was: Is it possible to admit the grounds for the non-application of the second paragraph of article 22 of the Penal Code in article 5 of Law No. 30838 on the prohibition of application in the process of Early Termination? For this reason, our research follows a qualitative approach, adopting the epistemological perspective of legal positivism and a propositional theoretical paradigm. Given its nature, we will use the documentary analysis technique, processing the information through legal argumentation and using data collection tools, such as textual files and summaries, to extract pertinent information from each text. The result was that: within a legal system, one must seek to guarantee coherence and constitutionality when applying a Law, as is the case of article 5 of Law No. 30838 and/or the second paragraph of article 22 of the Penal Code, likewise, avoid unequal treatment that may violate fundamental rights and the prevalence of constitutional principles; consequently, unequal treatment cannot be accepted within a Social and Democratic State governed by the rule of law. The most relevant conclusion was that: the exhaustive analysis of the legal regulations and jurisprudence related to the exclusion of procedural benefits for crimes against sexual freedom, both in article 22 of the Peruvian Penal Code and in article 5 of Law N ° 30838, reveals the existence of unequal and unconstitutional treatment. Finally, the corresponding recommendation is: repeal article 5 of Law No. 30838 and modify article 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code.