失败起诉的理论化

Jon B. Gould, Victoria M. Smiegocki, R. Leo
{"title":"失败起诉的理论化","authors":"Jon B. Gould, Victoria M. Smiegocki, R. Leo","doi":"10.21428/cb6ab371.dfc84123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last twenty years, the scholarly field of erroneous convictions has skyrocketed, with multiple articles and books exploring the failures that convict the innocent. However, there has been comparatively little attention to the other side of the coin, failed prosecutions, when the criminal justice system falls short in convicting the likely perpetrator. In this article, we take up failed prosecutions, simultaneously seeking to define its breadth and explain its relation to erroneous convictions. We explore potential hypotheses for the existence of failed prosecutions and then compare those theories to a set of failed prosecutions compiled from a moderately-sized district attorney’s office. With almost no prior research on failed prosecutions, these empirical data help to put meat on the theoretical bones of the concept. In the end, we argue that failed prosecutions and erroneous convictions may be seen as different sides of the same coin of miscarriages of justice. Not only do both reflect significant errors by the criminal justice system, but the sources behind each also appear to be surprisingly similar.","PeriodicalId":287606,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Violence & Crime (Topic)","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theorizing Failed Prosecutions\",\"authors\":\"Jon B. Gould, Victoria M. Smiegocki, R. Leo\",\"doi\":\"10.21428/cb6ab371.dfc84123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last twenty years, the scholarly field of erroneous convictions has skyrocketed, with multiple articles and books exploring the failures that convict the innocent. However, there has been comparatively little attention to the other side of the coin, failed prosecutions, when the criminal justice system falls short in convicting the likely perpetrator. In this article, we take up failed prosecutions, simultaneously seeking to define its breadth and explain its relation to erroneous convictions. We explore potential hypotheses for the existence of failed prosecutions and then compare those theories to a set of failed prosecutions compiled from a moderately-sized district attorney’s office. With almost no prior research on failed prosecutions, these empirical data help to put meat on the theoretical bones of the concept. In the end, we argue that failed prosecutions and erroneous convictions may be seen as different sides of the same coin of miscarriages of justice. Not only do both reflect significant errors by the criminal justice system, but the sources behind each also appear to be surprisingly similar.\",\"PeriodicalId\":287606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AARN: Violence & Crime (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AARN: Violence & Crime (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.dfc84123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AARN: Violence & Crime (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.dfc84123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的二十年里,错误定罪的学术领域迅速发展,有许多文章和书籍探讨了无罪定罪的失败。然而,相对而言,人们很少关注硬币的另一面,即失败的起诉,即刑事司法系统在定罪可能的犯罪者方面做得不够。在本文中,我们以失败起诉为例,同时试图定义其广度并解释其与错误定罪的关系。我们探索了失败起诉存在的潜在假设,然后将这些理论与中等规模的地区检察官办公室汇编的一组失败起诉进行比较。由于之前几乎没有对失败起诉的研究,这些经验数据有助于充实这一概念的理论框架。最后,我们认为,失败的起诉和错误的定罪可以被视为司法不公的同一枚硬币的不同侧面。这两者不仅反映了刑事司法系统的重大错误,而且背后的来源似乎也惊人地相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Theorizing Failed Prosecutions
Over the last twenty years, the scholarly field of erroneous convictions has skyrocketed, with multiple articles and books exploring the failures that convict the innocent. However, there has been comparatively little attention to the other side of the coin, failed prosecutions, when the criminal justice system falls short in convicting the likely perpetrator. In this article, we take up failed prosecutions, simultaneously seeking to define its breadth and explain its relation to erroneous convictions. We explore potential hypotheses for the existence of failed prosecutions and then compare those theories to a set of failed prosecutions compiled from a moderately-sized district attorney’s office. With almost no prior research on failed prosecutions, these empirical data help to put meat on the theoretical bones of the concept. In the end, we argue that failed prosecutions and erroneous convictions may be seen as different sides of the same coin of miscarriages of justice. Not only do both reflect significant errors by the criminal justice system, but the sources behind each also appear to be surprisingly similar.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Empirical Analysis of Human Trafficking in an Era of Globalization Theorizing Failed Prosecutions Downsides of Corporate Political Connections: Evidence from Mass Shootings Refugees Welcome? Understanding the Regional Heterogeneity of Anti-Foreigner Hate Crimes in Germany Strategies to Productively Reincorporate the Formerly-Incarcerated into Communities: A Review of the Literature
×
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