The right to counsel in Iranian criminal justice system

Criminal law deals with very important aspects of the life in the society. The subjects of the crime, health, reputation … are so important that endangering them requires punishment and it is told that the society in order to protect the public order should punish the perpetrators. There is no doubt that the criminals should be punished. The punishment enacted by the legislator should be proportional. The more serious the crime, the more severe the punishment. But, it seems that in the process of criminal trial, the accused has rights too. It means that society has not an absolute authority in accusation and punishment and in addition to the proportionality and justification of punishment the trial should be fair. In other words, it is not possible to speak about justice any more if the criminal is punished proportionally and rightly but not fairly, i.e. without allowing him/her to present his/her case, defend him/herself and obtain legal aid or sufficient information. Iranian criminal law, like other criminal justice systems in respecting the rights of the accused, has provided the right to counsel. This value can be expressed in the concept of the rule of law, recognized in international documents. It seems that the standards of the criminal procedure are mostly determined and developed under the influence of this concept. The current paper considers different aspects of the right to counsel in Iran.     

Webster and the fundamental right to make medical decisions

Members of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Fertility Society, American Medical Women's Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Society of Human Genetics have submitted an "amici curiae" brief in support of the appellees of "Webster." The brief did not endorse or oppose the view that the state's interest in fetal health is compelling as fetal viability. Instead, the brief said that: 1) everybody has the right to make medical decisions without the state interfering "up to the point where the state's compelling interest arises;" and 2) even after a compelling interest comes up, state rules must go along with good medical practices. Because some provisions of the Missouri law were not consistent with good medical practice, these provisions were not constitutional. The fetal viability testing requirement would increase risks to the woman and fetus without providing substantial information on viability. The counseling ban would prevent doctors from giving necessary information to pregnant women so that they could make informed decisions. The 1st section of the brief discussed "the medical background of pregnancy and abortion." The earliest age at which a fetus can survive has remained unchanged since "Roe." The medical complications and adverse health effects are fewer from than from childbirth. Abortions have become safer. The brief said that the "right of privacy" is broad enough so that a woman could decide whether or not to end her pregnancy. In "Roe," the Court found that if a woman was going to make a choice about pregnancy, this was the same as other private decisions which are protected in the Constitution. Individual medical decision making is "deeply rooted" in US "history and tradition." Accepted principles are reflected in the fact that the patient has a right to make these decisions based on the "liberty component of the Due Process Clause." Section 188.029 of the Missouri Law would make a doctor do certain tests for fetal viability. They would have no medical value, in most cases, and put a risk on the health of the mother. It was not related to any goal of the state, and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Section 188-205 of Missouri law - which says a doctor can't consult unless the mother's life is endangered was also unconstitutional.     

Roman concept of mental capacity to make end-of-life decisions

When assessing decisional competence of patients, psychiatrists have to balance the patients' right to personal autonomy, their condition and wishes against principles of medical ethics and professional discretion. This article explores the age-old legal and ethical dilemmas posed by refusal of vital medical treatment by patients and their mental capacity to make end-of-life decisions against the background of philosophical, legal and medical approaches to these issues in the time of the Younger Pliny (c62-c113 CE). Classical Roman discourse regarding mental competency and "voluntary death" formed an important theme of the vast corpus of Greco-Roman writings, which was moulded not only by legal permissibility of suicide but also by philosophical (in modern terms, moral or ethical) considerations. Indeed, the legal and ethical issues of evaluating the acceptability of end of life decisions discussed in the Letters are as pertinent today as they were 2000 years ago. We may gain valuable insights about our own methodologies and frames of reference in this area of the law and psychiatry by examining Classical Roman approaches to evaluating acceptability of death-choices as described in Pliny's Letters and the writings of some of his peers.     

Type of counsel and the outcome of criminal appeals: A research note

Previous studies have focused on type of counsel and case outcome at trial court, but only a few have done so at the appellate level. The purpose of this research note is to provide some insight into the influence of type of counsel on the out-come of criminal appeals. Results indicate that in criminal appeals from two Florida trial courts to an intermediate appellate court type of counsel was non-significant in predicting the court’s decision. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

Validities and abilities in criminal profiling: the dilemma for David Canter's Investigative Psychology

This article discusses misconceptions in Bennell, Jones, Taylor, and Snook's (2006) critique of Kocsis (2003a) concerning the validities and abilities surrounding criminal profiling. It also, in part, serves to canvass the approach of investigative psychology and what may be viewed as an imperative for some of its proponents to challenge evidence into the validity of criminal profiling, which is not easily reconcilable with that ideology.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

Morality in criminal law and criminal procedure: Principles,doctrines, and court cases

One of the drawbacks of the current era of predominance of Positive Law over Natural law, is that the moral roots of criminal law are all too easily overlooked or even ignored. Yet one should always keep in mind that moral standards (and the related area of Natural Law) historically preceded any type of criminal legislation or judicial decisions. This Note describes some selected aspects of criminal law of the United States (both substantive and procedural), with occasional references to other countries where necessary. Particular attention is focused on criminal law court cases and on how they deal with morality. The author argues that much more attention should be paid to the fundamental relationship between moral values and criminal law.     

论毒品犯罪案件的证据

毒品犯罪案件有许多不同于普通刑事案件的特殊性，毒品案件中的证据又具有相对的单一性，必须当场缴获毒品和毒资才能证实犯罪。本文结合缉毒侦查中的具体情况，强调办理毒品案件必须增强证据意识，要把握好破案的时机，适时取证；收集证据一定要十分仔细，获取的证据应做好固定保全工作，并特别注意取证的合法性；采用技术侦察手段须把握住一条底线：不得诱人犯罪；应正确运用推定规则判定“明知”，对推定结论允许以确凿的事实予以反驳。     

刑事案件中专家证据之结构及其可采性探究

本文通过对刑事案件中专家证据的使用标准及其使用中的三个问题展开论述。多伯特诉梅里尔·道氏制药公司案及其之后相关的案件都是围绕着这三个问题。首先,“多伯特三部曲”的焦点在于专家证据的可验证性为切入点,把刑事司法体系推向实证主义的认识论,片面地认为我们能够客观地认识事物,却脱离了认识的社会性。第二,从长远看,这种对事物认识的发展有利控方,而不利刑事被告人。第三,这种不同的影响,其结果会导致刑事司法体系不但不公正,而且不可靠。     

论毒品犯罪案件的证据

毒品犯罪案件有许多不同于普通刑事案件的特殊性,毒品案件中的证据又具有相对的单一性,必须当场缴获毒品和毒资才能证实犯罪。本文结合缉毒侦查中的具体情况,强调办理毒品案件必须增强证据意识,要把握好破案的时机,适时取证;收集证据一定要十分仔细,获取的证据应做好固定保全工作,并特别注意取证的合法性;采用技术侦察手段须把握住一条底线:不得诱人犯罪;应正确运用推定规则判定"明知",对推定结论允许以确凿的事实予以反驳。     

Are disturbed and normal adolescents equally competent to make decisions about mental health treatments?

This study uses a structured vignette procedure to assess competency to make treatment decisions in two groups of adolescents, one at risk for institutional placement and the other a matched community sample. Scores on Factual Understanding (the ability to recall facts), Inferential Understanding (the ability to make inferences about those facts), and Reasoning (the ability to weigh risks and benefits of various treatment options and to make choices based on that reasoning) were compared. Results showed that while at-risk adolescents and their community, counterparts did not differ in their factual and inferential understanding abilities, the at-risk adolescents did significantly less well than the community adolescents in reasoning. This difference could not be fully explained by differences in verbal IQ. Girls, no matter what their risk status, scored higher than boys on the Reasoning scale. Implications for legal policies concerning adolescents are discussed.     

采信错误鉴定与刑事赔偿2例分析

《刑事诉讼法》第 119条规定 :“为了查明案情 ,需要解决案件中某些专门性问题的时候 ,应当指派、聘请有专门知识的人进行鉴定。”人身伤害案件中伤者的伤情是确定案件性质和对致害人定罪量刑的主要证据。但由于我国目前证据立法滞后 ,鉴定标准不完善 ,导致鉴定结论变更率较大 ,采信错误鉴定致错拘、错捕、错判的情况时有发生。对于采信错误鉴定导致错拘、错捕、错判是否可以引起刑事赔偿 ,意见分歧较大 ,下面作者通过两起相同性质但法院做出了截然相反的裁判结果的案件对该问题进行分析。案例资料【案例 1】1994年 3月 2 6日 ,黄某酒后将本…     

采信错误鉴定与刑事赔偿2例分析

<刑事诉讼法>第119条规定:"为了查明案情,需要解决案件中某些专门性问题的时候, 应当指派、聘请有专门知识的人进行鉴定."人身伤害案件中伤者的伤情是确定案件性质和对致害人定罪量刑的主要证据.但由于我国目前证据立法滞后,鉴定标准不完善,导致鉴定结论变更率较大,采信错误鉴定致错拘、错捕、错判的情况时有发生.     

Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs

This article describes citations of social science research evidence in 200 criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court and in the briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae in these cases. It also examines the uses of social science authorities in samples of Supreme Court exclusionary rule and jury decisionmaking cases, and accompanying briefs. The correspondence between the social science references cited in the decisions and the briefs is used as one measure of the brief-writers' contributions to the Court's use of social science materials, and related contributions of the brief-writers are explored, as well. The justices appeared to locate the majority of social science references cited in their opinions without assistance from the briefs, and thus also presumably attempted to evaluate the research evidence on their own. Individuals and organizations with scientific expertise rarely filed amicus briefs in these cases, which may help explain why the Court so frequently was without assistance in locating or examining research evidence. It is suggested that the appellate judiciary's informed use of social science materials would be promoted if more social scientists, and their professional organizations, participated as amici curiae in cases presenting social fact issues within their competence.     

Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands

In this contribution an empirical approach is used to gain more insight into the relationship between neuroscience and criminal law. The focus is on case law in the Netherlands. Neuroscientific information and techniques have found their way into the courts of the Netherlands. Furthermore, following an Italian case in which a mentally ill offender received a penalty reduction in part because of a ‘genetic vulnerability for impulsive aggression’, the expectation was expressed that such ‘genetic defenses’ would appear in the Netherlands too. To assess how neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information are used in criminal justice practice in the Netherlands, we systematically collect Dutch criminal cases in which neuroscientific or behavioral genetic information is introduced. Data and case law examples are presented and discussed. Although cases are diverse, several themes appear, such as prefrontal brain damage in relation to criminal responsibility and recidivism risk, and divergent views of the implications of neurobiological knowledge about addiction for judging criminal responsibility. Whereas in the international ‘neurolaw literature’ the emphasis is often on imaging techniques, the Dutch findings also illustrate the role of neuropsychological methods in criminal cases. Finally, there appears to be a clear need of practice oriented instruments and guidelines.