Collecting Digital Evidence from Online Sources: Deficiencies in Current Polish Criminal Law

The importance of digital evidence, especially online content, is continuously increasing due to the proliferation of digital technologies in socio-economic life. However, the legal means of criminal evidence gathering in Polish legislation remain unchanged and do not take into account some contemporary challenges. In various countries, traditional rules of evidence gathering were created in the context of a physical world. These rules may be insufficient to safeguard the forensic soundness of evidence gathering methods. Inadequacies of current procedures may be especially visible in the context of transborder digital evidence gathering from online open sources. This article describes the practical shortcomings of Polish criminal evidence law in the context of digital evidence with particular attention to online open-source materials. Empirical data indicate that existing legal limitations are bypassed in practice to enable evidence collection. This unfortunately often happens at the expense of the forensic soundness of digital evidence.

“Complete Labelling” and Domestic Prosecutions for Crimes Against Humanity

Fair labelling is an established principle of criminal justice that scrutinises the way that States use language in labelling criminal defendants and their conduct. I argue that “complete labelling” is a related but separate principle which has not received any explicit attention from commentators. Whereas fair labelling focuses, usually, on the protection of defendant’s rights, the principle of complete labelling explains and justifies whether the labels attached appropriately represent the nature and scale of the wrong done to the community. As a case study, I apply this lens in the context of regional (U.S./Mexican) criminal justice responses to crimes against humanity perpetrated by “drug-cartels” in the context of the Mexican Drug War. Successive administrations in Mexico and the U.S. have tended to charge cartel leaders (and/or their political supporters) with so-called “transnational crimes” (for example, drug-trafficking, money-laundering, bribery/corruption). This is despite the fact that many of the most powerful cartels have controlled territory, attacked entire towns, carried out acts of terror, and disappeared thousands of people. The principle of complete labelling is useful in normative terms because it helps in the critical examination of a State’s prosecutorial practices, exposing problems that might otherwise be missed. In relation to the case study discussed, for example, a focus on complete labelling helps to expose the regional prosecutorial policy as either an unjustified exercise in selectivity or, at worst, an expression of collective denial. After considering certain counteracting reflexions which speak to some of the foundational anxieties of international criminal justice, the article concludes that domestic prosecutions for crimes against humanity in the context of drug-cartels may, sometimes, be justified.

Good Scientific Practice and Academic Reviews

Academic reviews (hereinafter “reviews”) are an integral part of legal journals. While their purpose and usefulness are at times disputed, all sub-disciplines of legal studies nevertheless argue in equal measure that a lack of substantial academic exchange by way of reviews would result in the impoverishment of scientific discourse. In German criminal law scholarship, two recent cases have sparked debate about whether certain rules should govern the publication of such reviews. The following remarks are intended to provide a thought-provoking impulse on the matter.