Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.434
A. Schneider, Cynthia J. Alkon
Plea bargaining is the primary, and unavoidable, method for resolving the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States. As more attention is paid to reform and changes in the criminal legal system, plea bargaining has also come into the spotlight. Yet we actually know very little about what happens during that process—a potentially complex negotiation with multiple parties that can, at different times, include prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, defendants, and victims. Using negotiation theory as a framework, we analyze why more information about the process itself can improve this crucial component of the system. More information—more data—would permit informed judicial oversight of pleas, improve lawyers’ capacities to negotiate on behalf of clients and the state, and increase the legitimacy of the bargaining between parties where one side tends to have far more resources and power. Without increased transparency, many of the players in the criminal legal system are just bargaining in the dark.
{"title":"Bargaining in the Dark","authors":"A. Schneider, Cynthia J. Alkon","doi":"10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.434","url":null,"abstract":"Plea bargaining is the primary, and unavoidable, method for resolving the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States. As more attention is paid to reform and changes in the criminal legal system, plea bargaining has also come into the spotlight. Yet we actually know very little about what happens during that process—a potentially complex negotiation with multiple parties that can, at different times, include prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, defendants, and victims. Using negotiation theory as a framework, we analyze why more information about the process itself can improve this crucial component of the system. More information—more data—would permit informed judicial oversight of pleas, improve lawyers’ capacities to negotiate on behalf of clients and the state, and increase the legitimacy of the bargaining between parties where one side tends to have far more resources and power. Without increased transparency, many of the players in the criminal legal system are just bargaining in the dark.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77939282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.585
Béatrice Coscas-Williams, M. Alberstein
Our paper surveys the development of criminal hybrid models in two continental jurisdictions, Italy and France, following the 1987 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to accelerate criminal proceedings through the introduction of guilty pleas, out-of-court settlements and simplified proceedings. We describe various frameworks for criminal justice as a multi-door arena, of which the plea bargaining is but one of several possibilities. In our review, we emphasize consensual elements, the place of the search of truth, and the role of the judges and other stakeholders. We outline the different paths that France and Italy have taken as incorporating adversarial and inquisitorial elements to increase efficiency. The French system made gradual modifications and remained inquisitorial by nature. Aside from the more recent integration of proceedings without trial inspired by plea bargaining, it has developed doors of abbreviated trials where the investigation stage is minimized. This has resulted in a different version of the vanishing trial—the vanishing investigation. The Italian system, on the other hand, has announced a drastic transformation to an adversarial framework of trial, while adopting mainly proceedings without trial. This shift has not resulted in a vanishing trial phenomenon, and currently, the full adversarial-type trial remains the main door in Italy. We describe the sequence of transformations of these systems and emphasize the significance of this contemporary patchwork of doors in terms of the role of the judges and the possibility of implementing a conflict resolution criminal justice perspective.
{"title":"A Patchwork of Doors","authors":"Béatrice Coscas-Williams, M. Alberstein","doi":"10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.585","url":null,"abstract":"Our paper surveys the development of criminal hybrid models in two continental jurisdictions, Italy and France, following the 1987 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to accelerate criminal proceedings through the introduction of guilty pleas, out-of-court settlements and simplified proceedings. We describe various frameworks for criminal justice as a multi-door arena, of which the plea bargaining is but one of several possibilities. In our review, we emphasize consensual elements, the place of the search of truth, and the role of the judges and other stakeholders. We outline the different paths that France and Italy have taken as incorporating adversarial and inquisitorial elements to increase efficiency. The French system made gradual modifications and remained inquisitorial by nature. Aside from the more recent integration of proceedings without trial inspired by plea bargaining, it has developed doors of abbreviated trials where the investigation stage is minimized. This has resulted in a different version of the vanishing trial—the vanishing investigation. The Italian system, on the other hand, has announced a drastic transformation to an adversarial framework of trial, while adopting mainly proceedings without trial. This shift has not resulted in a vanishing trial phenomenon, and currently, the full adversarial-type trial remains the main door in Italy. We describe the sequence of transformations of these systems and emphasize the significance of this contemporary patchwork of doors in terms of the role of the judges and the possibility of implementing a conflict resolution criminal justice perspective.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86965143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.359
C. Steiker, Jordan M. Steiker
The Supreme Court’s constitutional regulation of the American death penalty has yielded a plethora of doctrines that have shaped an alternative criminal justice process that is (mostly) limited to capital cases. Many of these doctrines offer a vision and practice of “roads not taken” in the ordinary criminal justice process that would be attractive improvements in that larger system. We consider three of these doctrines: (1) more searching review of the proportionality of sentencing outcomes; (2) imposition of a requirement of individualized sentencing that has led to the investigation and presentation of in-depth evidence in mitigation; and (3) greater regulation of the adequacy of defense counsel that has moved closer to a “checklist” model of mandated practices. Each of these doctrines was born and developed under the Court’s “death is different” regime of constitutional regulation, and each of them has to some limited extent moved beyond the strictly capital context into the broader criminal justice process. We explain how these alternative models present attractive improvements for the broader noncapital system—a view that casts the Court’s regulation of the American death penalty as a progressive laboratory that can yield alternative, more protective, and more idealized processes for the ordinary criminal justice system. Yet we also caution that the “differentness” of death—and of juvenile offenders, the noncapital context to which the Court is most likely to import its death penalty innovations—can also serve to normalize and entrench the less protective, less idealized practices that exist outside of these realms.
{"title":"The American Death Penalty","authors":"C. Steiker, Jordan M. Steiker","doi":"10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.359","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s constitutional regulation of the American death penalty has yielded a plethora of doctrines that have shaped an alternative criminal justice process that is (mostly) limited to capital cases. Many of these doctrines offer a vision and practice of “roads not taken” in the ordinary criminal justice process that would be attractive improvements in that larger system. We consider three of these doctrines: (1) more searching review of the proportionality of sentencing outcomes; (2) imposition of a requirement of individualized sentencing that has led to the investigation and presentation of in-depth evidence in mitigation; and (3) greater regulation of the adequacy of defense counsel that has moved closer to a “checklist” model of mandated practices. Each of these doctrines was born and developed under the Court’s “death is different” regime of constitutional regulation, and each of them has to some limited extent moved beyond the strictly capital context into the broader criminal justice process. We explain how these alternative models present attractive improvements for the broader noncapital system—a view that casts the Court’s regulation of the American death penalty as a progressive laboratory that can yield alternative, more protective, and more idealized processes for the ordinary criminal justice system. Yet we also caution that the “differentness” of death—and of juvenile offenders, the noncapital context to which the Court is most likely to import its death penalty innovations—can also serve to normalize and entrench the less protective, less idealized practices that exist outside of these realms.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88903324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-11DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.494
Sari Luz Kanner, Dana Rosen, Yosef Zohar, M. Alberstein
This article examines the role of the criminal judge in light of the vanishing trial phenomenon and the emergent reality of many doors to process legal conflicts in both the civil and criminal domains. It focuses on judicial conflict resolution (JCR), which is any activity conducted by judges in order to promote consensual disposition of legal cases, in “Plea Bargains Facilitating Days” (moqed) in Tel-Aviv Magistrate’s Court. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses of data collected from observations of 717 hearings in 704 criminal cases and found that, on average, 5.55 (SD = 3.62) hearings were required for disposing of a case, and the average duration of a legal proceeding from indictment to closure was 548.55 (SD = 323.17) days. In most of the hearings the judges’ role was confined to managerial-bureaucratic decisions intended to enable the negotiation between the parties. JCR activities occurred in only 16.9 percent of the hearings, and we identified six types of JCR practices in the promotion of plea bargains: narrow and broad facilitation of negotiations between the parties, forecasting the legal outcome, negatively presenting the judicial process, using lawyer-client relations to promote agreement, and using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques. These findings are compared to previous findings on the roles of judges in civil pretrial proceedings, and the more active role of the civil judge in promoting settlements is discussed. We further discuss the possibility of expanding a therapeutic and rehabilitative approach in the framework of criminal JCR during preliminary hearing days, which become today the main door of criminal justice.
{"title":"Managerial Judicial Conflict Resolution (JCR) of Plea Bargaining","authors":"Sari Luz Kanner, Dana Rosen, Yosef Zohar, M. Alberstein","doi":"10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.494","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the role of the criminal judge in light of the vanishing trial phenomenon and the emergent reality of many doors to process legal conflicts in both the civil and criminal domains. It focuses on judicial conflict resolution (JCR), which is any activity conducted by judges in order to promote consensual disposition of legal cases, in “Plea Bargains Facilitating Days” (moqed) in Tel-Aviv Magistrate’s Court. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses of data collected from observations of 717 hearings in 704 criminal cases and found that, on average, 5.55 (SD = 3.62) hearings were required for disposing of a case, and the average duration of a legal proceeding from indictment to closure was 548.55 (SD = 323.17) days. In most of the hearings the judges’ role was confined to managerial-bureaucratic decisions intended to enable the negotiation between the parties. JCR activities occurred in only 16.9 percent of the hearings, and we identified six types of JCR practices in the promotion of plea bargains: narrow and broad facilitation of negotiations between the parties, forecasting the legal outcome, negatively presenting the judicial process, using lawyer-client relations to promote agreement, and using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques. These findings are compared to previous findings on the roles of judges in civil pretrial proceedings, and the more active role of the civil judge in promoting settlements is discussed. We further discuss the possibility of expanding a therapeutic and rehabilitative approach in the framework of criminal JCR during preliminary hearing days, which become today the main door of criminal justice.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87073860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although an offender’s conduct before and during the crime is the traditional focus of criminal law and sentencing rules, an examination of post-offense conduct can also be important in promoting criminal justice goals. After the crime, different offenders make different choices and have different experiences, and those differences can suggest appropriately different treatment by judges, correctional officials, probation and parole supervisors, and other decision makers in the criminal justice system. Positive post-offense conduct ought to be acknowledged and rewarded, not only to encourage it but also as a matter of fair and just treatment. This essay describes four kinds of positive post-offense conduct that merit special recognition and preferential treatment: the responsible offender, who avoids further deceit and damage to others during the process leading to conviction; the debt-paid offender, who suffers the full punishment deserved (according to true principles of justice rather than the sentence actually imposed); the reformed offender, who takes affirmative steps to leave criminality behind; and the redeemed offender, who out of genuine remorse tries to atone for the offense. The essay considers how one might operationalize a system for giving special accommodation to such offenders. Positive post-offense conduct might be rewarded, for example, through the selection and shaping of sanctioning methods, through giving preference in access to education, training, treatment, and other programs, and through elimination or restriction of collateral consequences of conviction that continue after the sentence is completed.
{"title":"After the Crime","authors":"P. Robinson, Muhammad Sarahne","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3433812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3433812","url":null,"abstract":"Although an offender’s conduct before and during the crime is the traditional focus of criminal law and sentencing rules, an examination of post-offense conduct can also be important in promoting criminal justice goals. After the crime, different offenders make different choices and have different experiences, and those differences can suggest appropriately different treatment by judges, correctional officials, probation and parole supervisors, and other decision makers in the criminal justice system.\u0000 Positive post-offense conduct ought to be acknowledged and rewarded, not only to encourage it but also as a matter of fair and just treatment. This essay describes four kinds of positive post-offense conduct that merit special recognition and preferential treatment: the responsible offender, who avoids further deceit and damage to others during the process leading to conviction; the debt-paid offender, who suffers the full punishment deserved (according to true principles of justice rather than the sentence actually imposed); the reformed offender, who takes affirmative steps to leave criminality behind; and the redeemed offender, who out of genuine remorse tries to atone for the offense.\u0000 The essay considers how one might operationalize a system for giving special accommodation to such offenders. Positive post-offense conduct might be rewarded, for example, through the selection and shaping of sanctioning methods, through giving preference in access to education, training, treatment, and other programs, and through elimination or restriction of collateral consequences of conviction that continue after the sentence is completed.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89924389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-01DOI: 10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.301
A. Spena
Crimmigration has its breeding ground in dystopian and securitarian narratives. The anti-hero of these narratives is the mass-foreigner, a stereotyped version of the foreigner usually depicted, alternatively or cumulatively, as an enemy or as a parasite of host societies. But not only does crimmigration presuppose such narratives (and the deviant identity of the mass-foreigner, which is connected with them) as a source of legitimation, it also fuels these same narratives by providing them with an official sanction: by merging criminalization and irregularization on a legal level, it heavily contributes to making the social identity of mass-foreigners into a doubly deviant one. The overarching aim of this strategy is that of facilitating the exclusion of unwanted foreigners: first of all, their territorial exclusion (expulsion), but also, as a means to expulsion, their social exclusion (dereliction). This, I argue, deprives crimmigration of authoritative force—authority being inclusive in nature—and reduces it to mere violence.
{"title":"The Double-Deviant Identity of the Mass-Foreigner and the Lack of Authority of the Crimmigrationist State","authors":"A. Spena","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.301","url":null,"abstract":"Crimmigration has its breeding ground in dystopian and securitarian narratives. The anti-hero of these narratives is the mass-foreigner, a stereotyped version of the foreigner usually depicted, alternatively or cumulatively, as an enemy or as a parasite of host societies. But not only does crimmigration presuppose such narratives (and the deviant identity of the mass-foreigner, which is connected with them) as a source of legitimation, it also fuels these same narratives by providing them with an official sanction: by merging criminalization and irregularization on a legal level, it heavily contributes to making the social identity of mass-foreigners into a doubly deviant one. The overarching aim of this strategy is that of facilitating the exclusion of unwanted foreigners: first of all, their territorial exclusion (expulsion), but also, as a means to expulsion, their social exclusion (dereliction). This, I argue, deprives crimmigration of authoritative force—authority being inclusive in nature—and reduces it to mere violence.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76280887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-01DOI: 10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.236
Rottem Rosenberg Rubins
Scholars have offered various accounts of the forces that have caused the contemporary convergence of immigration enforcement and criminal law enforcement, known as “crimmigration.” This article argues that such accounts are insufficient, either because they have difficulty explaining the concrete practices by which crimmigration regimes operate, or because they explain the intersection of criminal law and immigration law solely from the perspective of the former. Additionally, much crimmigration scholarship has difficulty explaining why crimmigration regimes target populations that are principally undeportable, such as asylum-seekers. To fill these voids, this article conceptualizes crimmigration as a product of what Deleuze has termed the “control society.” Such conceptualization clarifies the objectives underlying crimmigration: namely, handling aggregates of presumably deviant groups and keeping dangerous behavior at an acceptable level. Additionally, it assists in explaining the precise practices by which crimmigration regimes operate, particularly the utilization of flexible and decentralized techniques of power. The objectives and manners of exercising power typical of the control society currently govern both criminal and immigration law, causing the unprecedented cooperation of these two fields. Furthermore, as a product of the control society, crimmigration is primarily a regime of domestic policing and population management, as opposed to a system dedicated to the deportation of undesirable migrants. By applying a methodology of textual analysis to the case study of detention of asylum-seekers in Israel, the article demonstrates the vast impact that the underlying principles of the control society have on the making of crimmigration regimes.
{"title":"Crimmigration as Population Management in the “Control Society”","authors":"Rottem Rosenberg Rubins","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.236","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have offered various accounts of the forces that have caused the contemporary convergence of immigration enforcement and criminal law enforcement, known as “crimmigration.” This article argues that such accounts are insufficient, either because they have difficulty explaining the concrete practices by which crimmigration regimes operate, or because they explain the intersection of criminal law and immigration law solely from the perspective of the former. Additionally, much crimmigration scholarship has difficulty explaining why crimmigration regimes target populations that are principally undeportable, such as asylum-seekers. To fill these voids, this article conceptualizes crimmigration as a product of what Deleuze has termed the “control society.” Such conceptualization clarifies the objectives underlying crimmigration: namely, handling aggregates of presumably deviant groups and keeping dangerous behavior at an acceptable level. Additionally, it assists in explaining the precise practices by which crimmigration regimes operate, particularly the utilization of flexible and decentralized techniques of power. The objectives and manners of exercising power typical of the control society currently govern both criminal and immigration law, causing the unprecedented cooperation of these two fields. Furthermore, as a product of the control society, crimmigration is primarily a regime of domestic policing and population management, as opposed to a system dedicated to the deportation of undesirable migrants. By applying a methodology of textual analysis to the case study of detention of asylum-seekers in Israel, the article demonstrates the vast impact that the underlying principles of the control society have on the making of crimmigration regimes.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91033731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-01DOI: 10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.318
Lucia Zedner
The concept of crimmigration recognizes the growing convergence of criminal law and immigration law as states seek to police migration, punish immigration offenses, and defend the boundaries of the sovereign state. Nowhere have these aims been pursued more vigorously than with respect to counter-terrorism, as states avail themselves of all legal means to target international terrorist networks and the rise of “foreign terrorist fighters.” In the U.K., legislative hyper-activity has produced a succession of counter-terrorist statutes that mix criminal law and immigration law. Some of the most draconian of these laws target the border and those who cross it. Closer attention to the territorial border reveals a liminal zone in which police and immigration officials enjoy exceptional powers and adherence to due process is attenuated. Apparent public acceptance of the imperatives of security at the border provides some license for such intrusions but little reassurance as to their legitimacy. This article examines the security concerns that motivate the expansion of police power, and it considers the impact of recent U.K. legislation, not least the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, on core principles of legality and on rights.
{"title":"The Hostile Border","authors":"Lucia Zedner","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.3.318","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of crimmigration recognizes the growing convergence of criminal law and immigration law as states seek to police migration, punish immigration offenses, and defend the boundaries of the sovereign state. Nowhere have these aims been pursued more vigorously than with respect to counter-terrorism, as states avail themselves of all legal means to target international terrorist networks and the rise of “foreign terrorist fighters.” In the U.K., legislative hyper-activity has produced a succession of counter-terrorist statutes that mix criminal law and immigration law. Some of the most draconian of these laws target the border and those who cross it. Closer attention to the territorial border reveals a liminal zone in which police and immigration officials enjoy exceptional powers and adherence to due process is attenuated. Apparent public acceptance of the imperatives of security at the border provides some license for such intrusions but little reassurance as to their legitimacy. This article examines the security concerns that motivate the expansion of police power, and it considers the impact of recent U.K. legislation, not least the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, on core principles of legality and on rights.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86974431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：