scholarly journals Le droit de punir

Criminologie ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-140
Author(s):  
José M. Rico
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Canadian Context ◽  
The Right ◽  
Policies And Practices

The main objective of this essay is to put forward some ideas in the right to punish. These ideas are put in the Canadian context and in relation to the criminal law. The criminal procedure and the criminal justice system. The first part defines the proper concepts : aims, justifications, scopes, limits and interconnections. Results cannot be properly evaluated if the basic definitions are not clear and precise. The second part presents a model for the revision and reform of criminal policies and practices. This model is based on a study of drug legislations and practices.

Victim Participation in Parole Proceedings in South Africa

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamil Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
South African ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Prison Inmate ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Victims Of Crime ◽  
The Right

South African law provides for circumstances in which victims of crime may participate in the criminal justice system at the investigation, prosecution (trial), sentencing and parole stages. In South Africa, a prison inmate has no right to parole although the courts have held that they have a right to be considered for parole. In some cases, the victims of crime have a right to make submissions to the Parole Board about whether the offender should be released on parole. Section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for the right of victims of crime to participate in parole proceedings. The purpose of this article is to discuss section 299A and illustrate ways in which victims of crime participate in the parole process. The author also recommends ways in which victims’ rights in section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act could be strengthened.

scholarly journals The ‘Equality Of Arms’ In Macedonian Criminal Procedure

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
Olga Kosevaliska
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Right

Abstract The right to a fair trial is implemented in our criminal procedure and is one of the core values of our criminal justice system. This right is absolute and can’t be limited on any legal base. Its essence is fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court with guaranteeing of all the minimum rights of the defendant. One of those minimum rights is the right of equity of arms between the parties, the prosecutor and the defense. In our Law on Criminal Procedure, it is provided that the defense has the same rights and duties as the prosecutor except those rights that belong to the prosecutor as a state authority. Therefore, the purpose of this article is elaborating the right of ‘equity of arms’ and its misunderstanding in practice. Hence, we intend to show some case studies in which some evidence are not considered by the court just because they are not proposed by the prosecutor and they are crucial for the verdict.

scholarly journals Crime Stories: Posnerian Pragmatism, Rawlsian Pure Procedural Justice, and the Fictional Problem

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 644-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R Morss
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Past Event ◽  
Crime Stories

[There are many different ways in which law and truth may be said to be related. It is perhaps in the criminal trial that connections between them are of most signifi- cance. An orthodox way of describing a criminal trial is that the criminal procedure is seeking to establish the truth concerning some past event, and that success of the procedure is measured by how close its outcome converges with that truth. Crimi- nal justice presents the community with challenging dilemmas in this regard, such as those arising from the notion of double jeopardy. This paper discusses the Rawl- sian notions of ‘imperfect’, ‘perfect’ and ‘pure’ procedural justice, and suggests against Rawls that it is pure procedural justice that best represents what we want from a criminal justice system. Good procedure makes good criminal law. A com- parison is made with the writings of Habermas and Posner, and given that pure procedural justice eschews transcendental truths, some brief comments are made on the convergence of that position with the realm of the fictional.] 

scholarly journals Islamic criminal procedure law: human rights issues

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 47-57
Author(s):  
Yusif Mamedov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Economic Status ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

It has been established that harsh Islamic punishments are practically not applied due to the high burden of proof and the need to involve an exhaustive number of witnesses. It has been proven that the Islamic criminal justice system provides the accused with basic guarantees. It is noted that according to Sharia, Islamic crimes are divided into three categories: Hadd, Qisas and Tazir. It is noted that Islamic criminal law provides that the accused is not guilty if his guilt is not proven. It is noted that equality before the law is one of the main legal principles of the Islamic criminal model, as all persons are equal before the law and are condemned equally regardless of religious or economic status (lack of immunity). There are four main principles aimed at protecting human rights in Islamic criminal law: the principle of legality (irreversible action), the principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of equality and the principle of ultimate proof. In addition, the Islamic criminal justice system provides defendants with many safeguards, which are always followed during detention, investigation, trial and after trial. It is established that such rights are: 1) the right of every person to the protection of life, honor, freedom and property; 2) the right to due process of law; 3) the right to a fair and open trial before an impartial judge; 4) freedom from coercion to self-disclosure; 5) protection against arbitrary arrest and detention; 6) immediate court proceedings; 7) the right to appeal. It is noted that if a person is charged, he/she has many remedies It is noted that the trial must be fair, in which the qadi (judge) plays an important role. It has been established that, in addition to the procedural guarantees, the qualifications and character of the qadi, as well as the strict requirements of Islamic rules of proof, are intended to ensure a fair trial in the case of the accused. Adherence to these principles has been shown to indicate that the rights of the accused are fully guaranteed under Islamic criminal law.

scholarly journals The Right of the Accused to Compensation in the Iranian Criminal Justice System

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
Mansour Rahmdel
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Rule Out

<em>Normally, the right to compensation refers to the victim’s compensation. The legislator also typically refers to the right to it, as the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code has done so in articles 14 and 15. But the present paper, refers not to the victim’s, but the accused right. The Criminal Procedure Code of 1912 and 1999 referred to the possibility of compensating the accused by the iniquitous private complainant. However, none of them referred to the government’s obligation to compensate to the innocent accused. In contrast, the Penal Code of 2014 stipulates the government’s obligation to compensate the defendant for damages, but does not rule out the possibility of compensation by iniquitous complainant. Certainly, it does not exempt the complainant to compensation. Reaffirming the responsibility of the government to offset the losses of innocent accused, in line with international conventions, is one of the highlights of the new code. But the lack of compensation for unjustified detention is one of the gaps in the new code. This paper proposes that the Iranian new code of criminal procedure, serves as a development in respecting the accused right in creating comprehensive compensation schemes.</em>

scholarly journals The House Always Wins: Systemic Disadvantage for Criminal Defendants and the Case against the Prosecutorial Veto

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan G. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Criminal Defendant ◽  
The Right

102 Cornell L. Rev. 1717 (2017)In the Preface to the 44th Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, Judge Alex Kozinski levels a number of criticisms against the modern American criminal justice system. Central among those criticisms is his assessment of the fundamental imbalance in criminal trials between the prosecution and the defense: “[W]e like to boast that our criminal justice system is heavily tilted in favor of criminal defendants because we’d rather that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted. There is reason to doubt it, because very few criminal defendants actually go free after trial.” Judge Kozinski’s concern—that the system is rigged to some degree in favor of the prosecution—is a relatively common one among defense attorneys and criminal justice reform advocates. Less common, however, are the specific measures Judge Kozinski proposes to ameliorate the criminal justice system’s flaws. One of his proposals that would work to rectify this imbalance centers on the right of the accused to receive a trial from his peers:Give criminal defendants the choice of a jury or bench trial . . . The prosecution has many institutional advantages, not the least being that they get to go first and thus have their theory of the case laid out before the defendant can present any evidence at all. I would think it fair to let the defendant get the choice of judge or jury.In many states, when a criminal defendant wants to waive the right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial, the defendant must first obtain the consent of the prosecutor. Scholars and practitioners frequently call the refusal of that consent the “prosecutorial veto,” and what Judge Kozinski proposes is its complete elimination from criminal procedure. The primary goal of this Note is to analyze the merits of that proposal. The Note will provide the relevant legal background to the issue, including the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the prosecutorial veto in Part I, and the various federal and state statutory approaches to the issue in Part II. Then, in Part III, the Note will consider the merits of Judge Kozinski’s proposal to eliminate the prosecutorial veto by exploring the policy arguments for it. Finally, in Part IV, the Note will make the case against the prosecutorial veto. The Note will conclude by agreeing with Judge Kozinski’s proposal and arguing for its adoption.

scholarly journals Victims’ rights are human rights: The importance of recognizing victims as persons

Temida ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo-Anne Wemmers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Victims ◽  
The State ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Right

In this paper the author argues that victims? rights are human rights. Criminal law typically views victims as witnesses to a crime against the state, thus shutting them out of the criminal justice process and only allowing them in when they are needed to testify. This is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims who seek validation in the criminal justice system. Victims are persons with rights and privileges. Crimes constitute violations of their rights as well as acts against society or the state. While human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do not mention crime victims specifically, a number of rights are identified, which can be viewed from the victim?s perspective. As individuals with dignity, victims have the right to recognition as persons before the law. However, such rights are only meaningful if they can be enforced.

Criminal Law and the Evolving Technological Understanding of Behaviour

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Claydon
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Human Behaviour

This chapter examines the claims made by science and technology that have impacted upon criminal law. It looks at issues of legitimacy in criminal law and in particular at claims based upon new scientific and technological explanations of human behaviour. It considers how the criminal law has responded to these challenges. It considers whether there are areas of the criminal law where a greater understanding of the relevant science would assist the criminal justice system. It also looks at the present legal approaches to those issues and considers how the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 may provide a framework for the courts when dealing with science and technology.

scholarly journals Retributivism and Criminal Procedure

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Galoob
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Simple View ◽  
Theories Of Punishment ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Refined Version

Retributivist theories of punishment are in tension with due process. Some retributivists adopt a simple view that punishment of the deserving is normatively justified. However, this Simple Retributivism licenses unjust and illegitimate rules of criminal procedure. A more refined version of retributivism, on which a person’s punishment is justified only if she deserves to be punished for the offense with which she is charged and her desert bases cause her to be liable to punishment, avoids the troubling implications of Simple Retributivism. Refined Retributivism also entails specific principles for implementing criminal law—that is, a distinctively Retributivist Criminal Procedure. On this Retributivist Criminal Procedure, procedural mechanisms must establish that there are good reasons to believe that an offender deserves to be punished for an offense, and these reasons must cause the offender’s liability to punishment. Yet Refined Retributivism is also difficult to reconcile with due process. Although Retributivist Criminal Procedure has some salutary implications, it also calls for abolishing core aspects of the U.S. system of criminal justice and features that are essential to any legitimate criminal justice system. Thus, retributivism (whether Simple or Refined) does not provide the basis for a just criminal procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document