The Courts in a Fragmented Criminal Justice System

The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 outlined a central role for courts in the criminal justice system. That role, however, has been somewhat diminished by the dominance of plea bargaining and the legislative enactment of mandatory minimum sentences that limit judges’ discretion. At the same time, judges have become more involved in specialized courts dealing in cases involving drugs and mental illness. A major topic of concern is the lower courts, which in many areas have changed little since the 1960s Commission. In those places, the traditional adversary process is not operating well, with many defendants pleading guilty unnecessarily in a system that may be designed primarily to collect fees. In violent crime cases, the imposition of capital punishment remains a controversial issue for states that is not likely to be resolved by a new national commission. The central court functions of sentencing and overseeing plea bargains are discussed elsewhere in this volume.     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

The Criminal Justice System Creates Incentives for False Convictions

Abstract

The American criminal justice system creates incentives for false conviction. For example, many public crime labs are funded in part per conviction. We show that the number of false convictions per year in the American criminal justice system should be considered “high.” We examine the incentives of police, forensic scientists, prosecutors, and public defenders in the U.S. Police, prosecutors, and forensic scientists often have an incentive to garner convictions with little incentive to convict the right person. These incentives create what economists call a “multitask problem” that seems to be resulting in a needlessly high rate of false convictions. Public defenders lack the resources and incentives needed to provide a vigorous defense for their clients. Corrective measures are discussed, along with a call for more research.     

The Prosecution Service Function within the Turkish Criminal Justice System

The national criminal justice system of Turkey is described. Special attention is paid to the Prosecution Service Function within this framework and its relationship to police and courts. The article not only refers to legal provisions but to the factual handling of criminal cases as well.     

The Prosecution Service Function within the Swiss Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system of Basel is described as a cantonal example for Switzerland. Special attention is paid to the Prosecution Service Function within this framework and its relationship to police and courts. The article not only refers to legal provisions but to the factual handling of criminal cases as well.     

The Impact of DNA Exonerations on the Criminal Justice System

One obvious result of DNA exonerations has been the enactment of legislation regulating postconviction DNA testing. But the impact on our criminal justice system goes beyond formal statutory change. The DNA exonerations are changing attitudes towards the death penalty, are focusing attention on how forensic laboratories operate, and are leading to the stricter scrutiny of forensic science.     

The Prosecution Service Function within the Croatian Criminal Justice System

The national criminal justice system of Croatia is described. Special attention is paid to the Prosecution Service Function within this framework and its relationship to police and courts. The article not only refers to legal provisions but to the factual handling of criminal cases as well.     

刑事证据视野中的盘查记录

盘查记录有《当场盘问、检查笔录》和《挡获经过(说明)》两种形式,它们在制作主体、形成时间空间、证明内容等方面具有不同特点,之所以如此,源于不同的警务机制。盘查记录的诉讼证据资格不应有任何疑问,这是因为在违法—犯罪二元追诉机制下,刑事立案前的查缉活动由负责日常警务的警察依法进行,由此获得的证据必然具有合法性。在证明作用方面,盘查记录因其证明内容的综合性、直接性和不可替代性,从而具备了很强的诉讼推进能力。从立法完善角度,应当统一盘查记录的形式,规范其制作方式和记载内容,明确盘查记录的诉讼证据地位。     

Decision Support Within the Criminal Justice System

The Crown Prosecution Service forms a vital component of the criminal justice system, as the chief organization prosecuting on behalf of the State and therefore the public. This paper highlights those areas where the CPS has attracted most criticism, focusing on sources of inconsistency in decision-making and management practices which may be considered inappropriate in the provision of justice. An example of how new technology could be utilized to improve the service provided by the CPS is presented. This would increase consistency of decision-making by introducing an independent assessment of the 'realistic prospect of conviction' test in the form of a decision support system. The various artificial intelligence tools available are discussed, in addition to a brief summary of why a neural network was felt to be the most suitable for the task under consideration. Preliminary results of a practical test, undertaken using archived data collected from various magistrates'courts are disseminated,together with discussion of the issues raised. Key issues concerning the philosophical and social acceptability of utilizing such a system within the Crown Prosecution Service are addressed by reference to correspondence with representatives of various organizations within the criminal justice system. This method is adopted in order to illustrate problems, both real and perceived, with the notion of utilizing technological support in what is a crucial human process.     

Criminal Justice System Involvement Among Homeless Adults

This study characterized the specific offenses for which homeless individuals are arrested and incarcerated. Data were gathered from 581 homeless adults across 6 Oklahoma City shelters. Participants were asked to self-report incarceration history, nights spent in jails and prisons, and the offenses for which they were arrested. Overall, 76% of the sample had ever been arrested. Fifty-seven percent of the sample had been to jail more than 3 times in their lifetime and 13% had ever intentionally been arrested. The most prevalent type of arrest was drug possession (35%), followed by driving under the influence (31%) and disorderly conduct or public drunkenness (28%). Violent arrests, such as assault, robbery, domestic violence, murder, and rape, were the least prevalent type of arrest. In summary, offenses were largely drug and status offenses. These offenses may be prevented through increased substance use treatment accessibility and availability of housing. Policies to increase employment and housing for homeless adults regardless of criminal history should be expanded to reduce the occurrence of justice involvement.     

Modelling Criminal Justice System Costs by Offence

This paper illustrates how to estimate criminal justice system costs by offence type. Criminal justice system costs are all the costs the authorities incur to prevent and investigate crime, prosecute criminals, impose sentences, and take care of victims and offenders. There are two approaches: the break-down and the bottom-up approaches. The break-down approach decomposes the aggregate budget into smaller pieces. The bottom-up approach multiplies known costs per activity by volumes for each activity and offence type. Both approaches can be combined with two types of estimates: incidence-based and prevalence-based estimates. An incidence-based estimate identifies all costs attributable to crimes committed or processed in a specified period regardless of whether these costs exceed this time period. A prevalence-based estimate identifies all costs incurred in a specified period regardless of when the crime was committed or processed. This paper looks at the differences between the two approaches and the two estimates and indicates which combination works best depending on the type of analysis and the availability of data. The methodologies are illustrated using examples from The Netherlands. These examples show that the availability of reliable data is crucial. The more assumptions have to be made, the less reliable the end results. Investing in better data in this area should be a first priority for governments interested in criminal policy evaluation.     

The Prosecution Service Function within the Spanish Criminal Justice System

The national criminal justice system of Spain is described. Special attention is paid to the function of the Public Prosecution Services within this framework and its relationship to police and courts. The article not only refers to legal provisions but to the factual handling of criminal cases as well.     

欧洲各国检察官在刑事司法制度中的作用

一、检察官的职权 1. 检察官作为公共当局,代表社会和公共利益,确保对违法者进行刑事追究法律的执行,既保护个人权利,又注重提高刑事司法制度所必需的效率。2.在所有国家的刑事司法制度中,检察官拥有以下权力：(1)决定是否起诉或继续追诉;(2)出庭支持公诉;(3)对法院的全部或部分裁判可以上诉或进行上诉。3.在某些国家的刑事司法制度中,检察官也拥有以下权力：(1)对执行国家刑事政策进行调整,以适应各地和地方的实际情况;(2)进行侦查,指导或监督侦查;(3)保证被害人得到有效的帮助;(4)监督法院裁判的执行等。二、检察官履行职权…     

日本刑事裁判中的裁判员制度

创设有国民参与的司法制度一直是日本司法改革的努力方向。2001年6月,日本司法制度改革审议会在意见书中提出建立裁判员制度的构想,2004年5月该制度正式确立。日本的裁判员制度从性质上讲属于参审制,即由法官和裁判员共同组成裁判体,对案件进行审理,在评议案件方面,裁判员与法官具有同等权限。裁判员制度有利于增强国民对司法的理解,牢固确立司法的国民基础。     

智利刑事司法体制改革的最新发展

智利刑事司法体制自上世纪80年代进行改革——由纠问式体制改为控辩制。本文对其改革过程、内容进行了简要介绍,以期对目前拉丁美洲有关国家的司法体制的变革有所了解并予以借鉴。