State, Citizen, and Character in French Criminal Process

This paper charts some major differences in the way in which evidence of the defendant's character is treated in France when compared with practice in England and Wales. Such evidence is more pervasive and visible (especially in the most serious cases) and its relevance is more broadly defined. Further, its presentation is shaped by a developed and positive conception of the French citizen. In part, these differences may be explained by differences in procedural tradition: the unitary trial structure in France, the dominance of fact—finding by the professional judiciary, and the rejection of general exclusionary rules of evidence. But a full explanation requires French legal culture to be understood in the context of French political culture. This reveals a very different conception of relations between state and citizen to that of Anglo-Saxon liberalism. As a result the legitimacy of trial is seen in terms of the rehabilitation of the accused as a citizen of the state rather than simply the punishment of a particular infraction.     

Building consensus for affordable housing

Abstract

At one time the national goal of affordable housing was a widely held consensus that led to decent housing for millions of Americans. Today, proponents of affordable housing must negotiate with diverse and sometimes hostile parties to secure project approvals. Discussions are frequently adversarial, and stalemate is too often the result. The consensus has collapsed.

If progress toward affordable housing is to be made, proponents will have to recast the way they operate within this new environment. More than new financing plans or recommendations for regulatory relief are needed. Attention must also focus on the processes by which groups address divergent interests and come to agreement. “Principled negotiation,” a form of joint problem solving, when coupled with third‐party intervention, offers a promising and effective means of dealing with this hostile environment.     

Socio‐legal Studies in France: Beyond the Law Faculty

This article is the third in an occasional series dealing with the development, current status, and future of socio‐legal studies in selected countries. It follows articles by Kim Economides (Aotearoa/New Zealand) and Harry Arthurs and Annie Bunting (Canada). In this article we argue that in France one can identify work that corresponds to the key strands of socio‐legal research in Anglo‐American societies but that ‘socio‐legal’ as a category of research and scholarship does not have the presence it has in the United Kingdom. French law faculties continue to be strongly shaped by a traditional disciplinary orthodoxy rooted in a highly and distinctively structured form of doctrinal analysis. In the first part, we explain the relatively limited presence of socio‐legal studies in French law faculties in terms of the historical and institutional mechanisms by which disciplinary closure has been created and maintained around traditional orthodoxies. But in the second part we will trace the presence – predominantly outside law faculties – of significant fragments of socio‐legal practice in the scholarship of law and allied disciplines.     

The Dynamics of Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the Domestic Security Dilemma

This article argues that the concept of the “domestic security dilemma” can help us to better understand public opposition to government counterterrorism policies. It examines the concept of the “security dilemma” in international relations theory and argues that this concept can also be applied to the analysis of domestic security politics. The article explains that when the government takes actions intended to make people safer from terrorist threats, it often has the unintended consequence of heightening concerns about government oppression. Thus, counterterrorism represents a “domestic security dilemma”—a situation where security tradeoffs have consistently undermined anticipated security gains.     

Dialogue and the Inquisitorial Tradition: French Defence Lawyers in the Pre-Trial Criminal Process

Recent years have seen an intermittent debate amongst journalists, policy-makers and academics in adversarial jurisdictions about the nature and quality of the inquisitorial tradition in criminal process. Much of the political impact of the debate in Britain has stemmed from the view asserted periodically by certain high profile figures that some form of judicial supervision of police investigation – as practised for example in France – might be introduced in England and Wales.¹ Such views tend to find expression when events call into question not just particular rules but also the underlying structures and assumptions of our adversarial tradition of criminal process. Thus in 1991 the public revelation of serious miscarriages of justice led to the appointment of a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in which the adversarial character of the pre-trial process seemed to be a key point of interrogation.² The police view, demonstrated in a number of key cases, was that once they were clear that a suspect was guilty they had no responsibility to pursue exculpatory lines of investigation. This, combined with the failure of defence lawyers to play the extensive, autonomous investigative role the adversarial system demanded of them, encouraged some to ask whether there might not be advantages in somehow ensuring that the resources and rights of the state were devoted to pursuing exonerating as well as incriminating evidence. Given the limited empirical evidence then available on the workings of judicial supervision in practice⁴ and the sometimes vehement dispute in France itself about the future of its pre-trial process and especially the juge d'instruction(examining magistrate), the proposals were perhaps not surprisingly rejected.⁵ But since the mid 1990s, British funders have begun to finance a number of empirical studies of French criminal justice.⁶ This paper reports the principal findings of a empirical study primarily funded by Britain's Economic and Social Research Council into the role of defence lawyers in France.⁷ Our focus and primary theme is the developing nature of their dialogue and exchanges with key state actors such as judges, prosecutors and the police on the one hand and with clients on the other. But in so doing we aim to cast light on the broader functioning of the pre-trial process in France.     

Ensuring safety, implementation and scientific integrity of clinical trials: lessons from the Criminal Justice–Drug Abuse Treatment Studies Data and Safety Monitoring Board

Data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) provide independent oversight to bio-medical clinical trials, ensuring safe and ethical treatment of research participants, data quality, and credibility of study findings. Recently, the type of research monitored by DSMBs has been expanded to include randomized clinical trials of behavioral and psychosocial interventions in community and justice based settings. This paper focuses on the development and role of a DSMB created by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to monitor six multi-site clinical trials conducted within the Criminal Justice–Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS). We believe this is one of the first such applications of formal DSMBs in justice settings. Special attention is given to developing processes for measuring and monitoring a range of implementation issues for research conducted within criminal justice settings. Lessons learned and recommendations to enhance future DSMB work within this area are discussed.     

Practical guidelines on incorporating “partnering” within IT agreements for public sector bodies

“Partnership” and “partnering” are two of the most frequently used terms in public sector procurement. They may be used by both customers and suppliers to justify their respective negotiating positions. A supplier may argue that, since the agreement is a “partnership agreement”, there should be no service credits or liquidated damages payable. The customer on the other hand, may argue, on similar grounds, that it wants to benchmark the supplier and have a broad right to audit every aspect of the supplier’s business.But despite being well used phrases, most guidance relating to these concepts does not define how “partnerships” or “partnering” is to work in practice. While most talk of the supplier and the customer working together “in partnership” with common aims, there is little information available as to how this will be incorporated into agreements, particularly in the context of large scale IT procurements.¹ The purpose of this article is to review the available guidance and detail some of the ways in which this guidance can be incorporated into legal agreements.