RESUMEN Una de las cuestiones o categorías dogmáticas más vilipendiadas en materia de Derecho penal, es la pena o sanción derivada del poder punitivo del Estado. Y es que, sin lugar a duda, el hecho de que el Estado se haya convertido en garante de los derechos de los ciudadanos en una especie de trueque histórico que le faculta, a su vez, para determinar cuáles conductas serán consideradas delictivas y cuáles sanciones corresponderán a cada una de esas conductas, provoca reflexiones dogmáticas, filosóficas, jurídicas y normativas, latentes y actuales. Hoy, empleando un enfoque metodológico de investigación de índole cualitativo y aplicando métodos como el histórico-lógico, el analítico-sintético y el inductivo, queda trazado como objetivo general: argumentar la suficiencia justificativa de las teorías sobre los fines de la pena. Se llega a la conclusión de que las teorías formuladas por la dogmática penal se fusionan eclécticamente, pero, aun así, no acaba de quedar racional y necesariamente justificada la pena, sobre todo, porque en ocasiones, queda legitimado el Estado a castigar los mismos bienes jurídicos que fueron afectados por el agresor con la única diferencia de que este, no tenía justificación ni legitimidad para hacerlo.

ABSTRACT One of the most vilified dogmatic issues or categories in criminal law is the penalty or sanction derived from the punitive power of the State. And it is that, without a doubt, the fact that the State has become the guarantor of the rights of citizens in a kind of historical barter that empowers it, in turn, to determine which behaviors will be considered criminal and which sanctions will correspond to each of these behaviors, provokes dogmatic, philosophical, legal and normative reflections, latent and current. Today, using a methodological approach to research of a qualitative nature and applying methods such as the historical-logical, the analytical-synthetic and the inductive, the general objective is: Arguing the justifying sufficiency of the theories on the purposes of punishment. Coming to the conclusion that the theories formulated by criminal dogmatics merge eclectically, but, even so, the penalty is not just rational and necessarily justified, above all, because on occasions, the State is legitimized to punish the same assets. legal that were affected by the aggressor with the only difference that he had no justification or legitimacy to do so.

Resumen El 24 de noviembre del 2016 se firmó en Bogotá el Acuerdo final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera, por el gobierno colombiano y la guerrilla de las Farc- EP. Este acuerdo creó la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP) como parte central de un sistema de justicia transicional que privilegia la restauración frente a la retribución tradicional. Asimismo, estableció las sanciones que pueden ser impuestas a los responsables de delitos cometidos en el marco del conflicto armado colombiano y que no implican necesariamente la cárcel, lo que ha dado lugar a un abierto debate social y político. Aquí se analiza la concepción tradicional y los fines de la pena en el Derecho Penal para establecer sus diferencias con las sanciones y fines de la justicia transicional colombiana. Se concluye que este modelo trasciende los límites del Derecho Penal retributivo y ha sido desarrollado por una legislación que respeta la Constitución y los estándares del Derecho Internacional y de los derechos humanos, al tiempo que contribuye al logro de una paz con justicia en Colombia.

Abstract On November 24,2016, the Final Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Construction of a Stable and Lasting Peace, was signed in Bogota by the Colombian government and the Farc-EP (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia- Ejército del Pueblo) guerrillas. This Final Agreement created a SPJ or Special Peace Jurisdiction (J.E.P.), and a transitional justice system that privileges restoration over traditional retribution. It also established the sanctions that can be imposed on those responsible for crimes committed in the context of the Colombian armed conflict, and which do not necessarily involve prison, which has given rise to an open social and political debate. This paper analyses the traditional conception and the purposes of punishment in criminal law to establish its differences with the sanctions and purposes of Colombian transitional justice. It is concluded that this model transcends the limits of retributive criminal law and has been developed by legislation that respects the Constitution and the standards of international law and human rights, while contributing to the achievement of peace with justice in Colombia.

Resumo Em 24 de novembro de 2016, o Acordo Final para o Término do Conflito e a Construção de uma Paz Estável e Duradoura foi assinado em Bogotá pelo governo colombiano e pelos guerrilheiros das FARC-EP. Este acordo criou a Jurisdição Especial para a Paz (JEP) como parte central de um sistema de justiça de transição que privilegia a restauração em detrimento da retribuição tradicional. Também estabeleceu as sanções que podem ser impostas aos responsáveis por crimes cometidos no contexto do conflito armado colombiano e que não necessariamente envolvem a prisão, o que deu origem a um debate social e político aberto. Aqui analisamos a concepção tradicional e os objetivos da punição no direito penal a fim de estabelecer como ela difere das sanções e dos objetivos da justiça transicional colombiana. Conclui-se que este modelo transcende os limites do direito penal retributivo e foi desenvolvido por uma legislação que respeita a Constituição e as normas do direito internacional e dos direitos humanos, ao mesmo tempo em que contribui para a conquista da paz com justiça na Colômbia.

On 18 September 2019, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the common-law defence of "reasonable and moderate chastisement" is unconstitutional as it unjustifiably violates sections 10 and 12(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. As a result, parents are no longer permitted to punish their child at home by way of inflicting physical punishment behind a facade of discipline. Despite the aforesaid, it should be noted that corporal punishment in the private sphere is not explicitly prohibited by South African legislation. In addition, South Africa's legislative system lacks an appropriate regulatory framework to administer the anticipated proliferation of assault cases against parents. It is against this backdrop that this article first analyses the current legislative framework regulating the protection of children from physical punishment, and then follows with a succinct overview of the Constitutional Court ruling. The article assesses whether the mere repeal of the common-law defence of "reasonable and moderate" chastisement will be sufficient to eradicate corporal punishment in the private sphere, and if not, whether legislative prohibition and/or other interceding strategies will be required to give effect to the objective of the Constitutional Court ruling. In this regard, by way of comparative research, the legislative framework adopted by Sweden, being the first country in the world to prohibit all forms of corporate punishment of children is evaluated. Lastly, recommendations are made for the incorporation of practical steps, including possible legislative measures, to establish a regulatory framework from a children's rights perspective to prohibit corporal punishment in the private sphere. Accordingly, for purposes of analysis and consideration, a qualitative approach is applied for purposes of the research. Primary sources such as the Constitution, case law, legislation, governmental documents, statistical data and research reports are consulted in conjunction with journal articles and textbooks.

Resumen En este trabajo se analiza la resocialización como fin principal de la pena privativa de la libertad en Colombia durante su fase de ejecución. Para esto se contextualiza la difícil situación por la que atraviesa el sistema penitenciario y carcelario colombiano, que conforme a lo declarado por la Corte Constitucional, se adecúa a un estado de cosas inconstitucional, en el que la dignidad humana de las personas privadas de la libertad se encuentra seriamente comprometida. Dentro de esta realidad que involucra un marcado hacinamiento carcelario, que a su vez propicia un ambiente de violencia, corrupción y desigualdad, la oferta y el acceso a los programas de resocialización es limitado. Los datos obtenidos muestran, por una parte, que las condiciones son precarias y que los índices de reincidencia no son intrascendentes, lo que en definitiva imposibilita la concreción del fin resocializador en la práctica, convirtiendo la pena en un acto que aparentemente se limita a cumplir una función retributiva y neutralizadora.

Abstract This paper discusses the resocialization as the main objective derived from the deprivation of liberty in Colombia, during its execution phase. For this, the difficult situation experienced by the Colombian prison system must be contextualized, which as it has been declared by the Constitutional Court, is an unconstitutional state of affairs, where human dignity rights of people deprived of their liberty, are seriously compromised. Within this reality that involves a strong overcrowding situation within the prison facilities, in turn also fosters an environment of violence, corruption and inequality, the supply and the access to resocialization programs is limited. The data obtained show on the one hand that the conditions are precarious and that recidivism rates are not inconsequential, which ultimately precludes the realization of rehabilitating purpose in practice, turning the punishment into an act which apparently is limited to play a role retributive and neutralizer.

Resumen El derecho internacional penal, DIP, requiere elaborar un marco teórico sólido sobre los fines a los que se dirige, porque desde la década de 1990 es aplicado de manera constante por tribunales nacionales e internacionales. Las especiales características del DIP hacen que no le sean fácilmente trasladables los fines propios del derecho penal nacional. En consecuencia, para determinar su contenido es necesario explorar la naturaleza de los bienes jurídicos protegidos por las principales categorías de delitos que lo conforman, y la función que cumple la pena en el DIP.

Abstract International criminal law (DIP) requires developing a solid theoretical framework on the purposes it aims for, given its consistent application by national and international courts since the 1990s. The special characteristics of the DIP make it not easily translatable for the purposes of national criminal law. Consequently, in order to determine its content, it is necessary to explore the nature of the legal assets protected by the main categories of offenses that comprise it, and the role the sentence has in the DIP.

The article begins with a brief outline of the main current theories on the role of punishment, recognizing both the dominance of special prevention as the primary function of criminal law enforcement, and the boom experienced by modern expressive-retributive theories, and its relationship with a positive general prevention theory as the one held by Jakobs. Then, the possibility to explain the treatment given to the different cases of criminal reiteration from the purposes posited by the different theories of punishment is analyzed. Thus, five cases of criminal reiteration are distinguished and the distinctive quality of each is determined: the apparent concurrency (including specialty cases, subsidiarity and consumption), the continuing offense, the real concurrence, recidivism and ideal concurrence. This allows analyzing the treatment that each theory of punishment should grant to every criminal reiteration case in order to support the central role attributed to criminal punishment.

El artículo comienza con una breve exposición de las principales teorías actuales sobre la función de la pena, reconociendo el predominio de la prevención especial como función primordial de la ejecución penal, al igual que el auge experimentado por las modernas teorías expresivo-retributivas, y su relación con una teoría preventivo general positiva como la de Jakobs. A continuación, se analiza la posibilidad de explicar el tratamiento que reciben los diversos supuestos de reiteración delictiva desde las finalidades que postulan las distintas teorías de la pena. Así, se distinguen cinco supuestos de reiteración delictiva y se determina la cualidad distintiva de cada uno de ellos: el concurso aparente (incluyendo casos de especialidad, subsidiaridad y consunción), el delito continuado, el concurso real, la reincidencia y el concurso ideal. En base a ello se analiza el tratamiento que cada teoría de la pena debería otorgarle para favorecer la función primordial que atribuye a la sanción penal.

This article, written within the framework of penal theories, seeks to establish the most widely applied criterion used by our recent jurisprudence in the application and justification for penal sanction. In this respect, and based on the analysis of the penal theory that underlies and is recognized by the current Chilean Penal Code, this article proposes the establishment of a criterion which is mainly compensatory, proportional and linked to the normative judgment of guilt to legitimize its application.

El presente artículo, en el marco de las teorías de la pena, busca establecer el criterio mayoritario que nuestra jurisprudencia reciente emplea para aplicar y justificar la sanción penal. En este sentido, basándose en el análisis de la teoría de la pena que subyace o reconoce el actual Código Penal chileno, plantea la existencia de un criterio mayoritariamente retributivo, proporcional y ligado al juicio normativo de reproche, para legitimar la aplicación de la misma.

The main feature of the Youth Criminal Justice System lies in the legal consequences and the criteria of selection. It combines two apparently opposite ideas: punishment and education. Judges are assigned with the task of watching over their balance. This way, the form of the decision changes and its understanding demands examining its principles, purposes and features.

La principal diferencia del sistema penal juvenil está en las consecuencias jurídicas y sus criterios de selección. Conjuga dos ideas aparentemente opuestas: sanción y educación. Se asigna al juez la tarea de velar por su equilibrio. Así, la forma de decisión también cambia y su comprensión exige examinar principios, fines y características.

This article focuses on one aspect of the acculturation process in ancient Mexico -the public manifestation of corporal violence associated with punishment, the death penalty and the exhibition of human body parts-, as represented by maps contained in the Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI, in which the division between places used for punishment and sacrificial purposes disappears. Studying this feature of colonial society enables us to understand the process through which indigenous sacrificial practices have been misinterpreted, while the divergent concepts of punishment and torture applied to each group have been overlooked.

En este artículo me refiero a una faceta del proceso de aculturación del México antiguo, la manifestación pública de violencia corporal ligada al castigo, la pena de muerte y la exposición de partes del cuerpo humano, como se representa en los mapas de las Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI, donde la frontera entre el lugar de castigo y el lugar de sacrificio se desvanece. El estudio de dicho aspecto de la sociedad colonial permite entender el proceso mediante el cual las prácticas sacrificiales indígenas se han malinterpretado, cuando los conceptos divergentes de castigo y tortura de cada grupo se pasan por alto.