Killing Kaplanism: Flawed methodologies, the standard of proof and modernity

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Cullerne Bown
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Error Reduction ◽  
Error Distribution ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Modern Era

Attempts to establish a quantitative framework for policy-making in the criminal justice system in recent decades have coalesced around the problem of the standard of proof and Kaplan’s influential 1968 paper. The central thread of work continues to use an equation he put forward while abandoning some of his foundational assumptions, an approach I call ‘Kaplanism’. Despite a growing awareness of deficiencies, elements of this school of thought, such as the parsing of concerns into the two categories of ‘error reduction’ and ‘error distribution’, have entered the general jurisprudential discourse. Here I launch a methodological attack and claim to kill this approach. This allows me to refute Laudan and other ‘consequentialist’ approaches to the standard identified by Walen, Walen’s own approach and an important part of Stein’s underpinnings. The same tools allow me to also refute Laudan’s earlier m/n meta-epistemology, Lippke’s ‘adage’, Stewart’s formalisation of Dworkin, Dahlman’s Bayesian work and (at least in criminal law) Kaplow’s law and economics approach. I also refute Hamer’s ‘conventional rationale’ for the current standard, Lillquist’s approach to the same and what Epps reports as ‘the Blackstone principle’. The law is left with no epistemic basis for policies, which, I argue, leaves it struggling for public trust in the modern era.

scholarly journals Wife Assault, The Justice System and Professional Responsibility

1995 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 908
Author(s):  
Diana Ginn
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Battered Women ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Professional Responsibility ◽  
Wife Assault ◽  
The Past ◽  
Key Players ◽  
The Way

The author reviews the response of the criminal justice system to the problem of wife assault by focusing on the key players within the system. The way the criminal law applies to wife assault affects battered women's access to that area of law known as family law, with negative repercussions for them and their children. Several myths about the nature of wife assault help ensure an inappropriate response. These include the myths that the woman is to blame, that by just leaving the abusive situation she can resolve it, and that if she does not leave it is because she enjoys the abuse. The author reviews current methods used by police, prosecutors and judges for dealing with wife assault and discusses the inadequacies of those methods. She concludes that despite many recommendations for change, there have been no significant improvements in the way the criminal justice system deals with wife assault. It is incumbent upon the legal profession to demonstrate professional responsibility by ensuring that wife assault is taken more seriously than it is now and than it has been in the past. This is a necessary reform before battered women can rely on the criminal justice system.

scholarly journals Legality Letter of Statement of Khilaf in Indonesia Criminal Justice System

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Rugun Romaida Hutabarat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Criminal Matters

In criminal law, a person charged with a criminal offense may be punished if it meets two matters, namely his act is unlawful, and the perpetrator of a crime may be liable for the indicated action (the offender's error) or the act may be dismissed to the perpetrator, and there is no excuse. The reasons may result in the death or the removal of the implied penalty. But it becomes a matter of how if the Letter of Statement Khilaf is the answer to solve the legal problems. The person who refuses or does not do what has been stated in the letters is often called "wanprestasi" because the statement is categorized as an agreement. The statement includes an agreement which is the domain of civil law or criminal law, so its application in the judicial system can be determined. This should be reviewed in the application of the law, are there any rules governing wrong statements in the criminal justice system. By using a declaration of khilaf as a way out of criminal matters, then the statement should be known in juridical rules. This study uses normative juridical methods, by conceptualizing the law as a norm rule which is a benchmark of human behavior, with emphasis on secondary data sources collected from the primary source of the legislation. The result of this research is that the statement of khilaf has legality, it is based on Jurisprudence No. 3901 K / Pdt / 1985 jo Article 189 Paragraph (1) of Indonesian criminal procedure law. However, this oversight letter needs to be verified in front of the court to be valid evidence, but this letter of error is not a deletion of a criminal offense, because the culpability of the defendant has justified the crime he committed. Such recognition, cannot make it free from the crime that has been committed.Keywords: Legality, Letter of Statement, Criminal Justice System

scholarly journals Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sean J. Mallett
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Regional Disparity ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Synthesis Approach

<p>One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This paper will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the paper will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.</p>

scholarly journals Discreet Discretion and Moderate Moderation in Judicial Sentencing: A commentary on Kenya’s Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Harrison O Mbori
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Criminal Sentencing ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Sentencing Policy

Criminal sentencing is an integral part in any judicial system for the fair administration of justice. The process of sentencing and the standards applied by judicial officers has, however, been a notoriously difficult component in many criminal law systems. In Kenya, sentencing has been blamed as one of the sources of ‘popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice’ to borrow from Roscoe Pound. This was the impetus for the Kenyan Judiciary to introduce the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 (SPGs). This paper is a general commentary, critique, and analysis of the SPGs. The author argues that SPGs come at an instructive epoch in Kenya’s economic, socio-political, and cultural development. This contribution is not a polemic on the Kenyan SPGs. The commentary makes sideglances to various jurisdictions that have had a longer experience with sentencing guidelines. The article forecasts that Kenyan SPGs will, despite its few shortcomings, nevertheless, prove to be important for all judicial officers involved in Kenya’s criminal justice system.

scholarly journals CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN INDONESIA ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMPARISON

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Muchammad Chasani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Responsibility System

The regulation of corporate criminal liability in Indonesia's criminal justice system is basically a new and still debatable issue. It is said that because in the Criminal Code is not recognized and regulated explicitly about the corporation as a subject of criminal law. This is a natural thing since the WvS Criminal Code still adheres to the principle of "societas delinquere non potest" or "non-potest university delinquere", that is, a legal entity can not commit a crime. Thus, if in a society there is a criminal offense, then the criminal act is deemed to be done by the board of the corporation concerned. Regarding the corporate criminal responsibility system in Indonesia, in the corruption law Article 20 paragraph (1), if the corporation committed a criminal act of corruption, then those responsible for the criminal act shall be the corporation only, the management only, or the corporation and its management. Thus, it can be said that the regulation of corporate criminal liability in the legal system in Indonesia is expressly only regulated in special criminal legislation, because the Criminal Code of WvS still adheres to the principle of "societas delinquere nonpotest" so it is not possible to enforce corporate criminal liability in it.

The Criminal Justice System: Materials on the Administration and Reform of the Criminal Law

1980 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
James Lindgren ◽  
Franklin E. Zimring ◽  
Richard S. Frase
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System

Legal challenges in bringing AI evidence to the criminal courtroom

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110570
Author(s):  
Katherine Quezada-Tavárez ◽  
Plixavra Vogiatzoglou ◽  
Sofie Royer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Criminal Courtroom ◽  
European Criminal Law ◽  
Applications Of Ai

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the criminal justice system. One of the promising applications of AI in this field is the gathering and processing of evidence to investigate and prosecute crime. Despite its great potential, AI evidence also generates novel challenges to the requirements in the European criminal law landscape. This study aims to contribute to the burgeoning body of work on AI in criminal justice, elaborating upon an issue that has not received sufficient attention: the challenges triggered by AI evidence in criminal proceedings. The analysis is based on the norms and standards for evidence and fair trial, which are fleshed out in a large amount of European case law. Through the lens of AI evidence, this contribution aims to reflect on these issues and offer new perspectives, providing recommendations that would help address the identified concerns and ensure that the fair trial standards are effectively respected in the criminal courtroom.

After the Crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-396
Author(s):  
Paul H. Robinson ◽  
Muhammad Sarahne
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Access To Education ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
Collateral Consequences ◽  
Probation And Parole ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Although an offender’s conduct before and during the crime is the traditional focus of criminal law and sentencing rules, an examination of post-offense conduct can also be important in promoting criminal justice goals. After the crime, different offenders make different choices and have different experiences, and those differences can suggest appropriately different treatment by judges, correctional officials, probation and parole supervisors, and other decision makers in the criminal justice system. Positive post-offense conduct ought to be acknowledged and rewarded, not only to encourage it but also as a matter of fair and just treatment. This essay describes four kinds of positive post-offense conduct that merit special recognition and preferential treatment: the responsible offender, who avoids further deceit and damage to others during the process leading to conviction; the debt-paid offender, who suffers the full punishment deserved (according to true principles of justice rather than the sentence actually imposed); the reformed offender, who takes affirmative steps to leave criminality behind; and the redeemed offender, who out of genuine remorse tries to atone for the offense. The essay considers how one might operationalize a system for giving special accommodation to such offenders. Positive post-offense conduct might be rewarded, for example, through the selection and shaping of sanctioning methods, through giving preference in access to education, training, treatment, and other programs, and through elimination or restriction of collateral consequences of conviction that continue after the sentence is completed.

The Limitations of the Harmonisation of Criminal Law in the European Union Protected by Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-334
Author(s):  
Kaie Rosin ◽  
Markus Kärner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Matters

Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu give Member States the possibility to suspend the legislative procedure of eu criminal law. Article 82(3) allows that kind of emergency brake mechanism for the process of adopting minimum standards for harmonising rules of criminal procedure enhancing judicial cooperation in criminal matters and Article 83(3) for establishing minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions. A Member State can only use the emergency brake clause when the proposal for the directive would affect the fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system. This prerequisite deserves a closer analysis, therefore the aim of this article is to interpret the meaning of tfeu articles 82(3) and 83(3) to better understand the limitations of the harmonisation of criminal law in the European Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document