Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
Análisis de las cuentas por cobrar del Consejo de la Judicatura de la ciudad de Babahoyo
dc.contributor.advisor | Merchán Jácome, Verónica Alexandra | |
dc.contributor.author | Huacon Chiriguay, Leslie Elizabeth | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-25T21:56:33Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-11-25T21:56:33Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dspace.utb.edu.ec/handle/49000/10759 | |
dc.description | The jurisprudence has defined coercive jurisdiction as an 'exorbitant privilege' of the Administration, which consists of the power to collect directly, without judicial intervention, the debts in their favor, obtaining the double quality of judge and party, whose protection is It is found in the prevalence of the general interest, inasmuch as these resources are required in a hurry to effectively fulfill the state ends. In the case of the Judicial Branch, coercive collection does not only seek to have the resources to effectively fulfill state purposes, but also requires the application of the penalty, thereby reestablishing the social order broken by the commission of the crime, which the sanctioned subject make reparation to society by making the effective payment of the pecuniary penalty applying the theory of retribution, as the just response to the crime, “the criminal law is the categorical imperative and the penalty, a necessary retribution that is inspired by the concept of justice absolute ”(Kant, 1962, p. 185) Reinforced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich as that“ the penalty, being the denial of the crime and this in turn being the denial of the right, reaffirms the empire of the State ”(Hegel, 1937, p. 116) The coercive collection has a problem made up of several issues such as over estimation of the debt, difficulties in collection, lack of technological tools and cooperation agreements and existence of excessive financial penalties, among the most representative. | es_ES |
dc.description | The jurisprudence has defined coercive jurisdiction as an 'exorbitant privilege' of the Administration, which consists of the power to collect directly, without judicial intervention, the debts in their favor, obtaining the double quality of judge and party, whose protection is It is found in the prevalence of the general interest, inasmuch as these resources are required in a hurry to effectively fulfill the state ends. In the case of the Judicial Branch, coercive collection does not only seek to have the resources to effectively fulfill state purposes, but also requires the application of the penalty, thereby reestablishing the social order broken by the commission of the crime, which the sanctioned subject make reparation to society by making the effective payment of the pecuniary penalty applying the theory of retribution, as the just response to the crime, “the criminal law is the categorical imperative and the penalty, a necessary retribution that is inspired by the concept of justice absolute ”(Kant, 1962, p. 185) Reinforced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich as that“ the penalty, being the denial of the crime and this in turn being the denial of the right, reaffirms the empire of the State ”(Hegel, 1937, p. 116) The coercive collection has a problem made up of several issues such as over estimation of the debt, difficulties in collection, lack of technological tools and cooperation agreements and existence of excessive financial penalties, among the most representative. | es_ES |
dc.description.abstract | La jurisprudencia ha definido la jurisdicción coactiva como un ‘privilegio exorbitante’ de la Administración, que consiste en la facultad de cobrar directamente, sin que influya intervención judicial, las deudas a su favor, obteniendo la doble calidad de juez y parte, cuyo amparo se encuentra en la prevalencia del interés general, en cuanto dichos recursos se requieren con prisa para cumplir eficazmente los fines estatales. En el caso de la Rama Judicial el cobro coactivo no busca solamente conseguir tener los recursos para cumplir eficazmente los fines estatales, sino que además requiere la aplicación de la pena, con lo cual reestablecer el orden social roto por la comisión del delito, que el sujeto sancionado repare a la sociedad haciendo el pago efectivo de la pena pecuniaria aplicando la teoría de la retribución, como la respuesta justa al delito, “la ley penal es el imperativo categórico y la pena, retribución necesaria que se inspira en el concepto de justicia absoluta” (Kant, 1962, pág. 185) Reforzado esto por Georg Wilhelm Friedrich como que “la pena, siendo la negación del delito y este a su vez siendo la negación del derecho, reafirma el imperio del Estado” (Hegel, 1937, pág. 116) El cobro coactivo tiene una problemática conformada por varios asuntos como la sobre estimación de la deuda, dificultades para el recaudo, falta de herramientas tecnológicas y convenios de cooperación y existencia de penas pecuniarias excesivas, entre lo más representativo. | es_ES |
dc.format.extent | 18 p. | es_ES |
dc.language.iso | es | es_ES |
dc.publisher | BABAHOYO: UTB, 2021 | es_ES |
dc.rights | Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Ecuador | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ec/ | * |
dc.subject | Cobro coactivo | es_ES |
dc.subject | Pena pecuniaria | es_ES |
dc.subject | Deterioro de cartera | es_ES |
dc.title | Análisis de las cuentas por cobrar del Consejo de la Judicatura de la ciudad de Babahoyo | es_ES |
dc.type | bachelorThesis | es_ES |