Wrongful Convictions and Erroneous Acquittals: Applying Packer’s Model to Examine Public Perceptions of Judicial Errors in Australia

The fallible nature of the criminal justice system continues to see judicial errors—that is, wrongful convictions and erroneous acquittals—undermine its integrity, efficacy, and legitimacy. Public perceptions of judicial errors are important contributors to criminal justice policy and reforms. The current study utilizes the 2016 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) dataset to examine public attitudes toward judicial errors. It applies Herbert Packer’s crime control and due process models to understand how concerns around procedural safeguards and public safety are associated with public perceptions toward judicial errors. Packer’s model has been challenged by studies, which theorize that the models are not mutually exclusive. Yet, they have not been empirically tested in this context, which is a gap this study seeks to fill. Findings show that due process and crime control concerns shape public attitudes toward wrongful convictions and challenge the notion that Packer’s models be applied on a continuum.

Psicologia do Testemunho: dos Primórdios à Atualidade

This paper has the objective to show the scientific contribution of Psychology of Testimony, understanding the phenomenon of false memories, affecting the veracity of the testimonies and the identification of suspect. Thus, the hypothesis to be considered is if the Psychology of Testimony is helpful bringing scientific criteria for the testimony and suspect identification, reducing judicial errors and the condemnation of innocents. The methodology used is based on a bibliographic review. For this purpose, the origin of Psychology of Testimony is described, pointing its main milestones and how the science has been developed with the various experiments and discoveries. It is important to verify how human memory works and what can be expected from it, considering the scope of testimonies being realized at police station and at judicial hearing. The false memories effect is considered as well. Afterward, it is analyzed how the Code of Criminal Procedure considers the testimonies of the victims and witness, besides the suspect identification. It also pursued to demonstrate possible existing distinction between the Code’s rules and the reality, reflecting on potential judicial errors. Finally, based on the Psychology of Testimony and dignity of the human person, there are suggestions related to be the best way to make the victims and witnesses´ testimony, in addition to suspect identification.

The problem of the parties’ explanations as evidence in arbitration courts

The article examines the problem of the parties explanations as evidence in arbitration courts. The author analyzes this problem through the prism of the admissibility of lies in the arbitration process. This problem is resolved from both legal and philosophical and ethical positions. The untruth is something that destroys trust the foundation of society, among other things, it undermines the credibility of the court, which accepts a lie; a lie destroys the person himself. The author reasonably believes that the one who considers a lie in court to be permissible allows the victory of untruth in court, thereby contributing to the transformation of a liar into a triumphant villain with the complicity of the court. Lying leads to dysfunction of justice, allowing lies in the trial is contrary to the very foundations of justice. The entry into force of a judgment based on a lie in one dispute only gives rise to a new dispute between the same parties. The author proves that a negative attitude towards lies is characteristic of both substantive and procedural law. It is concluded that the availability of effective means of protection against lies in the process is consistent with the principle of maintaining citizens confidence in the law and the actions of the state; justice is expected from the courts, not the encouragement of lies and deceit. The author reveals a contradiction between the attitude to judicial errors formed in the Soviet era and the consideration of the procedure of revision based on newly discovered circumstances only to the procedure of revision in the order of self-control, and the actual task of the court to correct judicial errors. It is rightly noted that this approach is extremely difficult to overcome, since new evidence showing the lie of the party is not considered by the courts as newly discovered circumstances. Meanwhile, a decision based on a lie is a miscarriage of justice.

Modern Stage of Cassation Proceedings in the Criminal Process of Russia: Loss of «Exclusivity» or Strengthening of Specificity?

The cassation proceedings in the criminal procedure of the Russian Federation have undergone large-scale legislative changes both in the judicial and procedural aspects. As a result of this at the theoretical level there was a need to re-evaluate not only the internal content of the institution of cassation, but also to assess its external characteristics as a stage of criminal proceedings. The study is aimed at discussing and resolving the controversial issue of the «exceptional» nature of the stage of cassation proceedings. The semantic and procedural-legal load of the term «exclusivity» is clarified in order to establish the acceptability of using this definition as a characterizing property of the procedural stage, which is a part of ordinary criminal procedural activity. The dialectical-materialist method of cognition the objective reality was used in the present study. The main results were achieved through the use of historical-comparative, formal-logical, comparative-legal methods, methods of inferential knowledge and other methods of scientific knowledge. The term «stage exclusivity» was inherited from the Soviet period in the development of the criminal process, and now it has become outdated. The cassation appeal in criminal cases become an accessible, ordinary procedural means of redress to the citizens due to the modern abolition of the preliminary stage of consideration of the cassation appeal against the final decisions and the broad interpretation of the grounds for the cancellation of court decisions in cassation procedure. The revision basis of the cassation procedure has significantly expanded the possibilities of the cassation court to identify judicial errors of different nature, which makes the cassation proceedings an effective ordinary stage of the criminal process with its own characteristics.

Recent evolution of jurisdiction in criminal review

A final and irrevocable court decision enjoys the authority of the res judicata. Thus, a settled dispute can no longer, in principle, be the subject of a new trial, with the same object, the same cause and between the same parties. However, judicial errors crept into final court decisions as a result of several omissions may lead to the resumption of the trial in order to find out the truth. Such a mechanism is governed by the extraordinary remedy of review which is a retraction and at the same time a procedural means by which final judgments are challenged and has as its primary purpose the correction of serious errors.

ABUSE OF THE RIGHT AND JUDICIAL ERRORS IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE JUDGE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF CRIMINAL CASES WITH THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED WITH THE CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST HIM

The article examines the categories of "abuse of law" and" miscarriage of justice", as well as the factors contributing to their occurrence, reveals the mechanism of occurrence of miscarriages of justice, the sources and causes of their occurrence. The author substantiates the claim that the defect of interest, as an aspect of law enforcement, causes the occurrence of abuse and can cause a miscarriage of justice. The main characteristics of a miscarriage of justice, as well as the signs that distinguish a miscarriage of justice from abuse, are revealed. The definition of "abuse of the right" is given, its properties and features are revealed. The article analyzes the peculiarities of committing judicial errors and abuses under a special procedure of judicial proceedings.

Matters related to Court Session Scheduling and Choice of Court Procedure in Criminal Proceedings: Problems, Errors, and Solutions

The paper considers one of the key stages of court work in criminal proceedings, namely the initial preparation stage for a court session in a criminal trial and scheduling of the said session while choosing the procedure rules (general or special, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The paper analyzes the latest changes in legislation regulating these issues, ambiguities and uncertainties that give rise to judicial errors made at this stage, including those related to the choice (determination) of the procedure for judicial proceedings, their impact on the future fate of the criminal case and the final court decision (sentence).Studying the cases of specific judicial precedents (including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation), the author emphasizes the reasons these errors can be caused by. Examples of the actions of the parties (both the prosecution and the defense) that significantly affect this stage and even determine it, as well as the final court document, including in terms of criminal punishment, are given. The author shows that, at the will of only the prosecution (the state prosecutor and (or) the victim), the defendant (convicted), who conscientiously contributes to justice and fully admits his guilt at all stages of the investigation and judicial consideration of the criminal case, is deprived of the benefits provided to him by law (privileges in the appointment of criminal punishment), which even the judge (court) considering the criminal case cannot influence. The difficulties of the court (judge) in deciding on the choice of the procedure for trial in a criminal case and the legislative uncertainty in the issues under consideration are revealed. Specific ways of solving the problems under consideration of scheduling a court session in a criminal trial are proposed.

Criminalistics is not the science of prosecution or defense, but aimed at judicial resolution of criminal cases

The article considers the purpose of criminalistics as an objective science. The author briefly analyzes the definitions of the subject of criminology proposed by scientists in different years. At the same time, the General trend becomes obvious — the monopolization of criminology by law enforcement agencies. With reference to the position of the Patriarch of Russian criminalistics R. S. Belkin, the author expresses his opinion that criminalistics cannot and should not serve only state law enforcement agencies. The results of forensic research can be successfully used in criminal cases by the defense party-lawyers and other representatives of suspects and accused. The article provides examples when abuses by the preliminary investigation bodies with reference to the use of criminalistics provisions led to judicial errors and bringing innocent persons to criminal responsibility. Only in court, when using the evidence presented by the parties to the defense and prosecution, obtained, including through the use of recommendations of forensic science, a criminal case can be fairly resolved.

JUDGING THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEFENDANT REMOVED FROM THE TRIAL ON GROUNDS OF DISCIPLINE

The article analyzes the legal provisions governing the conditions of trial in the absence of the defendant if he is removed from the trial for disciplinary reasons by adjusting them to practical cases both at national level and in the jurisprudence of the European Court and by highlighting gaps in the national legislation in this regard. The researched topic is a current one since the compromising behavior of the defendant during the court hearings is attested more and more often, a fact that directly threatens the order and solemnity of the criminal trial, as well as the interests of the participants in the trial. The issue in question acquires an important connotation, including through the uneven practice applied by the courts on how to judge the case by removing the defendant from the trial, as well as the negative consequences that arise as a result - nullity of the judgment adopted, thus violating the principle of efficient administration of justice. Based on the obtained results, the legal omissions in the part related to the trial procedure in the absence of the defendant are revealed, the judicial errors admitted in practice in this respect, being elaborated preliminary versions for their solution, which can be used effectively for the application of legal provisions. versions for their solution. the activity of applying the legal provisions in practice.

Whistleblower rewards, false reports, and corporate fraud

It is often claimed that rewards for whistleblowers lead to fraudulent reports, but for several US programs this has not been a major problem. We model the interaction between rewards for whistleblowers, sanctions against fraudulent reporting, judicial errors, and standards of proof in the court case on a whistleblower’s allegations and the possible follow-up for fraudulent allegations. Balancing whistleblower rewards, sanctions against fraudulent reports, and courts’ standards of proof is essential for these policies to succeed. When the risk of retaliation is severe, larger rewards are needed and so are tougher sanctions against fraudulent reports. The precision of the legal system must be sufficiently high, hence these programs are not viable in weak institution environments, where protection is imperfect and court precision low, or where sanctions against false reporting are mild.