Pretrial detention and its interpretation in the context of potential environmental justice based on substantialist, proceduralist, and mixed criteria

Descripción del Articulo

The objective of the study was to describe the frequency of preventive detention criteria and their interpretation concerning potential environmental justice from substantialist, proceduralist, and mixed criteria perspectives. The study, with a quantitative approach, analyzed 120 preventive detentio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Junchaya-Vera, Frecia Cristel, Ubillus-Vargas, Maria Delia
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2024
Institución:Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal
Repositorio:Revistas - Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal
Lenguaje:español
OAI Identifier:oai:ojs2.revistas.unfv.edu.pe:article/1844
Enlace del recurso:https://revistas.unfv.edu.pe/rtb/article/view/1844
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:conservation
environmental justice
presumption of innocence
preventive detention
legal proportionality
conservación
justicia ambiental
presunción de inocencia
prisión preventiva
proporcionalidad legal
Descripción
Sumario:The objective of the study was to describe the frequency of preventive detention criteria and their interpretation concerning potential environmental justice from substantialist, proceduralist, and mixed criteria perspectives. The study, with a quantitative approach, analyzed 120 preventive detention cases in the Superior Court of Justice of Cañete (2016-2017), Lima, Peru using a structured questionnaire and SPSS v25 for data analysis. The results indicated that 58.3% of cases applied substantialist criteria, prioritizing the severity of the crime, while 25% applied proceduralist criteria, and 16.7% used mixed criteria. Although substantialist criteria ensure environmental protection, they could compromise rights such as the presumption of innocence. In the discussion, it is highlighted that the predominance of these criteria could affect the fairness of the judicial system, suggesting that a balance with proceduralist criteria, as seen in other jurisdictions, improves justice. It is concluded that judicial practices must be reviewed, operators trained, and guidelines established that promote proportionality and respect for fundamental rights.
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).