<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim https://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01037nam a2200181   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">19872</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">19872</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">20050608u           y0pory50      ba</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="101" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">ita</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="200" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Il dibattito sulla ammissibilit&#xE0; della perizia e della consulenza criminologica nel processo penale</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">L'autore ripercorre il dibattito sviluppatosi in Italia circa l'atteggiamento assunto dal legislatore in tema di ammissibilit&#xE0; della perizia criminologica nelle varie fasi del processo penale, analizzando in particolare le soluzioni prospettate nei progetti di riforma del codice di procedura penale nonch&#xE9; sulla ammissibilit&#xE0; della consulenza tecnica criminologica sull'imputato fuori dai casi di perizia.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="v">Anno VII, N.3</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">sett.-dic. 2003</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p.87-100)</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">Rassegna Penitenziaria e Criminologica</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">Roma</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">PROCESSO PENAL  PER&#xCD;CIAS  CRIMINOLOGIA</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">GIANNINI</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Ilario</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="852" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="j">P.91</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="995" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">P__91_000000000000000</subfield>
    <subfield code="5">2021-12-17</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">23201</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="k">P.91</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">2021-12-17</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">AP</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
