隐私权:刑事程序基本权

隐私权是宪法权利,亦是刑事程序基本权.隐私权作为刑事程序调整的重要范围,保护着个人对刑法执行至关重要的有罪或者无罪信息的私有,以及对不让政府插手的个人信息的享有.加强刑事领域的隐私权保护,意味着要在政府的规范需要和个人隐私权益上达成大量开放式的司法平衡,对政府操纵背景条件的能力进行有限限制.漠视隐私权的刑事程序比我们想象的更具有事实性的恶果,其对事实结果的影响可能导致一些不良趋势.为此,应关注作为宪法权利的隐私权在刑事诉讼中的属性、价值及作用,加大对我国刑事程序中隐私权的保护.     

Automated communication and basic rights

Nowadays communication does not necessarily originate from humans, but also from “machines” such as “social bots” or “things” in the Internet of Things. From a basic rights perspective, this phenomenon raises the question if such communication benefits from the same level of protection as communication created by human beings. With regard to the basic rights of the Grundgesetz, the Federal Constitutional Court for years has been excluding some forms of communication from the scope of protection as not needing or deserving protection. The ratio of these decisions must not be applied to cases of automated communication without noticing possible differences. Automated communication can mostly be linked to the human beings or legal entities applying it. Therefore, its prohibition or regulation is a matter of proportionality of infringements with fundamental rights.

     

Human rights safeguards and international cooperation in extradition: Striking the balance

Conclusion It is necessary to strike the correct balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and engendering mutually beneficial cooperation between states in extradition matters. In the absence of effective global international human rights enforcement mechanisms, many of the traditional safeguards still have a real role to play in extradition. This article reviewed five such safeguards and found that all but the nationality exception should be retained to ensure that international cooperation and individual protection are both safeguarded for the common good of society.This is a revised version of a paper presented at an international workshop on Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law, organized jointly by the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany, May 21–25, 1991.LL.B., University of Exeter 1973; LL.M., Osgoode Hall Law School 1974; D. Jur., Osgoode Hall Law School 1976.     

Effects of prior knowledge and expert statement on belief in recovered memories: an international perspective

We tested the hypothesis that beliefs in the purported attributes of recovered memories of child sexual abuse (CSA) are associated with knowledge of the "recovered/false memory debate", and that such beliefs will be related to assessments of the credibility of statements made by participants in a vignette about CSA. Participants from five countries (the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Israel) responded to a questionnaire regarding beliefs about recovered memory as well as self-reported exposure to and knowledge of the debate. In addition, they assessed the credibility of statements made by a daughter (reporting recovery of memories of sexual abuse by her father), her father (denying the allegation and accusing the daughter's therapist of implanting in her false "memories" of abuse), and two experts (each supporting one of the two protagonists). We found that prior knowledge of the debate across countries was linked to beliefs in specific attributes of recovered memories and to a subset of the credibility assessments of statements made by the protagonists and their experts. For individuals, however, credibility assessments were unrelated to knowledge of the debate, but they were related to beliefs about memory recovery. Finally, credibility of the protagonists' statements was differentially associated with those made by the daughter's and the father's experts. The results suggest that whereas familiarity with the debate does not affect the credibility of the statements made by the complainant and the accused, expert testimony does, as has been found in prior research. The psycholegal implications of this conclusion are discussed.