The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of Innocence

This article examines the place of the criminal dock in courtroom design. Challenges to the use of the dock have been based upon the inability of the defendants to hear effectively, to communicate with counsel, to maintain their dignity, and to benefit from the presumption of innocence. Increasingly courts are incorporating secure docks, where defendants are partially or completely surrounded by glass (or in some countries, metal bars). To what extent do these changes and modifications undermine the right to the presumption of innocence? We present the results of an experimental mock jury study that was designed to test whether the placement of the accused influences jurors’ perceptions. We find that jurors are more likely to convict defendants when they are located in a traditional dock or a secure dock, compared to sitting next to their counsel at the bar table. We conclude by discussing the implications for trial procedures, counsel communications, and courtroom design.     

Transplanting Jury Trials in South Korean Legal Soils: Comparative Analysis with Jury Trials in the United States

Jury trials, known as common-law institution centering on the UK and the USA, for the first time in Korean adjudicatory history, have been transplanted into Korean legal soils under cultural and political climate with legal roots of the “Civil Participation in Criminal Trial Act (CPCTA) of 2007” since 2008. This research examines legal and operational issues of jury trials through comparative analysis between the United States and South Korea. Several legal characteristics of 2013 revision bill of CPCTA, proposed by the Committee of Civil Participation in the Judiciary (CCPJ), are to be pointed out: so-called “civil participation” approach, de facto binding power of jury verdict and sentencing, and a stricter standard for a jury verdict or decision (3/4 majority). Statistical results from planting jury trials in both American and Korean legal system proved to be very similar. Meanwhile, a 2013 revision bill has to overcome several practical and legal obstacles, such as low usage of jury trials, the high rate of judicial dismissal of defendants’ petitions, and violation of Article 27 of the Korean Constitution. Under the current legislative scheme, judges in Korean courts need to operate jury trials in such a careful and respectful way that the revision may neglect neither a defendant’s right to jury trial nor jury’s verdict. Legal scholars, experts, and legislators with interests in implementing jury trials in Korea should research on ways to expand the system to other judicial procedures such as juvenile, civil, family, and administrative cases.     

The Denial of Procedural Safeguards in Trials for Regulatory Offences: A Justification

Regulatory offences are a complex phenomenon, presenting problematic aspects both at the level of criminalisation and at the level of enforcement. The literature abounds in works that study the phenomenon. There is, however, an aspect that has remained largely unexplored. It concerns the relationship between the regulatory framework within which the crime occurs and the procedural safeguards that defendants normally enjoy at trial or at the pre-trial stage: defendants tried for regulatory offences are often denied safeguards that are generally considered as important constituents of trial fairness. Relying on a new conceptualisation of regulatory offences, this paper advances a theory that justifies these exceptional rulings.     

前苏联“解冻文学”对中国“百花文学”的影响

前苏联的“解冻学”和中国的“百花学”都属于“社会批判学”。“解冻学”在社会批判中阐发“人的尊严”，这一社会批判理论直接影响着“百花学”的形成和发展。“百花学“仿效“解冻学”的创作路数，艺评论思想和组织形式，由于不同的国内形势，“解冻学”得以发展，而“百花学”却被迫中断。     

Human Rights Trials in an Era of Democratic Stagnation: The Case of Turkey

Domestic human rights trials are often conceptualized within the context of transition toward democracy. Yet, a recent cascade of trials in Turkey defies this argument. Between 2008 and 2015, Turkish courts oversaw fifteen trials examining individual criminal accountability for human rights violations carried out by the Turkish military during the conflict with the PKK in the 1990s. The cascade of trials has emerged and remained ongoing while the Turkish regime has become steadily more authoritarian. This article explains the emergence of these trials by the redistribution of power among elite actors, which created a window of opportunity allowing for ongoing legal mobilization to result in prosecutions. Drawing on original data from interviews conducted in Turkey between 2014–2015, this study demonstrates the importance of power redistribution for human rights during periods of democratic stagnation, while emphasizing the ability of trials to contribute to the contestation of hegemonic narratives.     

The Impact of the ICTY Trials on Public Opinion in the Former Yugoslavia

If the impact of the ICTY in the countries of the former Yugoslaviawere to be measured exclusively by the poor public perceptionof the Tribunal that prevails, perhaps the best course of actionwould be to shut its doors without waiting for the end of itsmandate. The author tries, however, to show the more complexand multifaceted nature of the perception of the Tribunal atdifferent levels, in the different countries of the former Yugoslavia,as well as at different moments in time. His conclusion is thatthe ICTY should have done more to improve its image in the region,thereby making it more difficult for the local elites to distortand manipulate its message.     

The Use of Religion in Death Penalty Sentencing Trials

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys have presented religious appeals and testimony about a defendant's religious activities in order to influence capital jurors' sentencing. Courts that have objected to this use of religion fear that religion will improperly influence jurors' decisions and interfere with their ability to weigh aggravators and mitigators. This study investigated the effects of both prosecution and defense appeals. Prosecution appeals did not affect verdict decisions; however, use of religion by the defense affected both verdicts and the weighing of aggravators and mitigators. These results could be due to differences in perceived sincerity and remorse that are conveyed in the various appeals.     

The Ethics of Plea Bargaining in International Criminal Trials

The paper argues that contemporary theoretical and philosophical concerns relating to the practice of plea bargaining in international trials for crimes such as genocide should be seen in the broader context of the perceived legitimacy of international trial justice. The paper questions the capacity of international trial structures to deliver a form of truth which contributes to justice suggesting that the legitimacy of the truth available is conditioned by ideology and normative practice. The paper suggests that the key to transforming international trial justice lies in promoting the link between trial ideology and the perceived moral legitimacy of its outcomes through the exercise of judicial discretionary power. Ralph Henham is Professor of Criminal Justice, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University.     

文学意识与媒体意识的重奏——《钟山》与"新写实文学"的兴起

在"新写实"文学思潮的倡导过程中,<钟山>成功地将文学意识和媒体意识加以结合,它对文学思潮或文学倾向积极倡导,并进一步文本化、学理化、定性化.对于这一类型的文学作品集中力量的发表和推荐,复活了曾经被屏蔽了的现代媒体意识,是新时期大陆文学刊物中较早成功体现媒体运作策略的刊物.这也是<钟山>以主人公姿态积极参与文学创作过程的文学策略的有效运作.由此奠定了<钟山>在全国大型文学刊物中的先锋地位.     

Due Process and the Death Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument in Capital Trials

Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument during the penalty phase of capital trials can be defined as any disparaging or prejudicial statements calculated to influence the jury to consider improper factors in determining life in prison or the death penalty (Gaskill, 1991, p. 13). Improper statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument may jeopardize a defendant's right to a fair trial. While acknowledging such statements as misconduct, courts sometimes permit them on the theory that the presence of improper statements in closing argument would not change the juries' verdicts and therefore are not fundamentally unfair (Chapman v. California, 1967). The present study examined whether improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument during the penalty phase of a capital trial would result in more death penalty recommendations. Three hundred and twenty jury-eligible individuals viewed a videotape based on the penalty phase of an actual capital trial (Brooks v. State, 1977). Individuals exposed to improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument recommended the death penalty significantly more often than those not exposed to the statements.