Prosecutorial and Police Disclosure Ethics in Criminal Evidence Review in the UK and the US. A Comparative Account

Q2 Social Sciences Criminal Justice Ethics Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/0731129X.2022.2056352
Maro Polykarpou
{"title":"Prosecutorial and Police Disclosure Ethics in Criminal Evidence Review in the UK and the US. A Comparative Account","authors":"Maro Polykarpou","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2056352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a comparative analysis of the phenomenon of pre-trial non-disclosure of criminal evidence, as exhibited by police and prosecution authorities in the US and English legal systems. The majority of literature that focuses on the subject of disclosure and specifically non-disclosure when it comes to criminal evidence review, explores the challenges and experiences of the US and English disclosure systems in isolation. This article considers disclosure ethics in the context of systemic cultural patterns exhibited by prosecution and police authorities in both jurisdictions. Thus, by conducting a step-by-step appreciation of the culture and operative practices experienced in both common-law systems, the article aims to offer a better understanding of the causes that lie behind police and prosecutorial ethical violations of disclosure duties. Specifically, I conclude that both police officials and prosecutors in England and the US enjoy a significant number of incentives that encourage unethical behavior and set low standards for performing one’s ethical and legal duty to disclose. At the same time, both criminal justice systems do not appear to put enough measures in place in order to punish and deter such occurrences.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2056352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of the phenomenon of pre-trial non-disclosure of criminal evidence, as exhibited by police and prosecution authorities in the US and English legal systems. The majority of literature that focuses on the subject of disclosure and specifically non-disclosure when it comes to criminal evidence review, explores the challenges and experiences of the US and English disclosure systems in isolation. This article considers disclosure ethics in the context of systemic cultural patterns exhibited by prosecution and police authorities in both jurisdictions. Thus, by conducting a step-by-step appreciation of the culture and operative practices experienced in both common-law systems, the article aims to offer a better understanding of the causes that lie behind police and prosecutorial ethical violations of disclosure duties. Specifically, I conclude that both police officials and prosecutors in England and the US enjoy a significant number of incentives that encourage unethical behavior and set low standards for performing one’s ethical and legal duty to disclose. At the same time, both criminal justice systems do not appear to put enough measures in place in order to punish and deter such occurrences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英美刑事证据审查中的检察与警察披露伦理比较
本文对美国和英国法律体系中警察和检察机关所表现出的审前不披露刑事证据的现象进行了比较分析。大多数文献都集中在刑事证据审查中的披露主题,特别是不披露,单独探讨了美国和英国披露制度的挑战和经验。本文从两个司法管辖区的检察机关和警察机关所表现出的系统文化模式的角度来考虑披露伦理。因此,通过逐步了解这两个普通法系的文化和运作实践,本文旨在更好地了解警察和检察官违反披露义务的道德背后的原因。具体而言,我得出的结论是,英国和美国的警察和检察官都享有大量鼓励不道德行为的激励措施,并为履行披露的道德和法律义务设定了较低的标准。与此同时,两个刑事司法系统似乎都没有采取足够的措施来惩罚和阻止此类事件的发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Ethics Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Exposing, Reversing, and Inheriting Crimes as Traumas from the Neurosciences to Epigenetics: Why Criminal Law Cannot Yet Afford A(nother) Biology-induced Overhaul Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility Sentencing, Artificial Intelligence, and Condemnation: A Reply to Taylor Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics of the Rule Against Unreasonably Splitting a Case Ethical Resource Allocation in Policing: Why Policing Requires a Different Approach from Healthcare
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1