En este nuevo libro, dedicado a los delitos de terrorismo, los autores examinan la evolución experimentada en el tratamiento penal de este fenómeno criminal, considerado hoy como una de las mayores amenazas para el Estado de Derecho, y que España ha sufrido duramente desde hace tiempo como consecuencia de los atentados de las organizaciones terroristas de Eta y Grapo. Una amenaza intensificada en los últimos años, no sólo en nuestro país sino también en la comunidad internacional, como consecuencia del terrorismo yihadista, que presenta nuevas formas y características y que, por tanto, exige una respuesta penal adecuada, más eficiente y en forma coordinada, de todos los países. El libro contiene cuatro capítulos. El Capítulo I comprende un conjunto de reflexiones sobre estos delitos, con referencia a ciertas consecuencias que han llevado a afirmar aquí una especie de derecho penal de excepción, e incluyéndolos en categorías tales como el «derecho penal del enemigo» o en una «tercera velocidad » que abarcaría estos delitos. En el Capítulo II se examinan los principales instrumentos normativos que representan actualmente la respuesta internacional frente al terrorismo. El Capítulo III está dedicado a los delitos de terrorismo del Código penal español, tras la reforma operada por la Ley Orgánica 2/2015. Y, por último, el Capítulo IV aborda todo lo relacionado con las víctimas del terrorismo, cuyo reconocimiento y apoyo constituye una pieza esencial de la respuesta de la justicia penal, en coherencia con lo expresado al respecto por las Naciones Unidas. Manuel Jaén Vallejo es Doctor en Derecho (sobresaliente cum laude) por la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Profesor Titular de Derecho Penal y Magistrado (número 1 de su promoción). Ha sido Letrado del Tribunal Supremo, Magistrado Juez de Instrucción de Marbella, Magistrado de las Audiencias Provinciales de Las Palmas y de Girona, y Asesor del Ministerio de Justicia. Ángel Luis Perrino Pérez es Fiscal de carrera. Tras licenciarse en Derecho por la Universidad San Pablo C.E.U, superó las pruebas de acceso a las carreras Judicial y Fiscal en el año 2003. Ha desempeñado sus funciones como Fiscal en el T.S.J de Cataluña, T.S.J de Madrid, Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, y como Fiscal Asesor en el Ministerio de Justicia. Enrique Agudo Fernández es Doctor en Derecho (sobresaliente cum laude) por la Universidad de Granada, y ha sido docente en las Universidades de Valladolid y Carlos III de Madrid. Actualmente presta sus servicios como Magistrado Asesor en el Ministerio de Justicia.

A theme that has persisted throughout the history of American corrections is that efforts should be made to reform offenders. In particular, at the beginning of the 1900s, the rehabilitative ideal was enthusiastically trumpeted and helped to direct the renovation of the correctional system (e.g., implementation of indeterminate sentencing, parole, probation, a separate juvenile justice system). For the next seven decades, offender treatment reigned as the dominant correctional philosophy. Then, in the early 1970s, rehabilitation suffered a precipitous reversal of fortune. The larger disruptions in American society in this era prompted a general critique of the “state run” criminal justice system. Rehabilitation was blamed by liberals for allowing the state to act coercively against offenders, and was blamed by conservatives for allowing the state to act leniently toward offenders. In this context, the death knell of rehabilitation was seemingly sounded by Robert Martinson's (1974b) influential “nothing works” essay, which reported that few treatment programs reduced recidivism. This review of evaluation studies gave legitimacy to the antitreatment sentiments of the day; it ostensibly “proved” what everyone “already knew”: Rehabilitation did not work. In the subsequent quarter century, a growing revisionist movement has questioned Martinson's portrayal of the empirical status of the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Through painstaking literature reviews, these revisionist scholars have shown that many correctional treatment programs are effective in decreasing recidivism. More recently, they have undertaken more sophisticated quantitative syntheses of an increasing body of evaluation studies through a technique called “meta-analysis.” These meta-analyses reveal that across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group. However, this research has also suggested that some correctional interventions have no effect on offender criminality (e.g., punishment-oriented programs), while others achieve substantial reductions in recidivism (i.e., approximately 25 percent). This variation in program success has led to a search for those “principles” that distinguish effective treatment interventions from ineffective ones. There is theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioral treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with high-risk offenders. “Multisystemic treatment” is a concrete example of an effective program that largely conforms to these principles. In the time ahead, it would appear prudent that correctional policy and practice be “evidence based.” Knowledgeable about the extant research, policymakers would embrace the view that rehabilitation programs, informed by the principles of effective intervention, can “work” to reduce recidivism and thus can help foster public safety. By reaffirming rehabilitation, they would also be pursuing a policy that is consistent with public opinion research showing that Americans continue to believe that offender treatment should be an integral goal of the correctional system.

cancer n. any malignant tumor . . . Metastasis may occur via the bloodstream or the lymphatic channels or across body cavities . . . setting up secondary tumors . . . Each individual primary tumor has its own pattern . . . There are probably many causative factors . . . Treatment. . . depends on the type of tumor, the site of the primary tumor and the extent of the spread. (Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary 1996, 97) Let us begin by stating the obvious. Acts of organized violence are not necessarily of human nature, but they are endogenous events arising within the an intrinsic part evolution of complex systems of social interaction. To be sure, all wars have features in common - people are killed and property is destroyed - but in their origin wars are likely to be at least as different as the social structures from which they arise. Consequently, it is unlikely that there can be a simple theory of the causes of war or the maintenance of peace. The fact that wars are historical events need not discourage us. On the contrary, we should focus our understanding of the dimensions of each conflict, or classes of conflict, on the conjuncture of causes at hand. It follows that the study of conflict must be an interdisciplinary one. It is or a penchant for eclecticism that leads to that conclusion, but the not humility multi-dimensionality of war itself.

This is an edited volume of approximately 17 essays that deal with various types of spontaneous shrines and other, related public memorializations of death. The articles address events such as New York after 9/11; roadside crosses, and the use of 'Day of the Dead' altars to bring attention to deceased undocumented immigrants.

Fear of Crime in the United States: Causes, Consequences, and Contradictions examines the nature and extent of crime-related fear. The authors describe and evaluate key research findings in the specific areas of methodology; gender, age, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status; contextual predictors; and the consequences of fear of crime. They discuss the improvement of fear of crime measures over time; the consistent finding that women are more afraid of crime; the impact of age, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on fear; and the importance of environmental factors (such as witnessing crime and perceptions of diversity, disorder, and decline) and indirect victimization (through acquaintances and the media) on fear. The book also describes the physical, psychological, behavioral, and social effects of fear of crime. In the end, the authors tie the findings together to suggest important policy and research implications from the wealth of available research. There is no other book of which I am aware that so masterfully reviews empirical studies on fear of crime during the past half century to show how the research has changed and will continue to evolve. As long as there is crime, there will be perceptions of risk and fear of victimization; and Lane et al. help one to sift through the research with conceptual precision to formulate the most scientifically valid conclusions about the phenomena. The book is a hedgehog view of the research but points the way to needed research on topics such as fear of terrorism and how social context shapes perceptions of crime. The book is must-reading for those involved in research on victimization or fear of crime. - Kenneth F. Ferraro, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center on Aging and the Life Course, Purdue University This book consolidates the literature on fear of crime in a way that is unprecedented and that lends much-needed coherence to the area. It is