让人们思考和交谈:对司法部长2020年披露准则的探索

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2022-09-10 DOI:10.1177/13657127221124362
C. Griffiths
{"title":"让人们思考和交谈:对司法部长2020年披露准则的探索","authors":"C. Griffiths","doi":"10.1177/13657127221124362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article evaluates the recent Attorney General's Guidelines on disclosure in criminal cases. These Guidelines signal a further step away from adversarialism, towards an internally incoherent justice system which incorporates managerial characteristics, alongside increasing elements of inquisitorialism. Whilst still promoting the rhetoric of adversarialism, these changes have the potential to reconfigure the role of the suspect and the court in such a way as to circumvent the protections inherent in the adversarial system. This article considers two areas of the Guidelines, pre-charge engagement and the enforcement of a ‘thinking manner’ approach to the disclosure exercise. By considering these two expansive areas, a broader perspective of the Guidelines is taken in order to fully appreciate their significance. The impact of these newly minted Guidelines is not yet apparent, but this article postulates the potential longer-term ramifications of the changes and ultimately concludes that the Guidelines will result in further systemic incoherence which undermines suspect and defendant rights, and fundamentally reconstitutes courts as adjudicators of criminal investigations.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"359 - 380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Getting people thinking and talking: An exploration of the Attorney General’s 2020 guidelines on disclosure\",\"authors\":\"C. Griffiths\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127221124362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article evaluates the recent Attorney General's Guidelines on disclosure in criminal cases. These Guidelines signal a further step away from adversarialism, towards an internally incoherent justice system which incorporates managerial characteristics, alongside increasing elements of inquisitorialism. Whilst still promoting the rhetoric of adversarialism, these changes have the potential to reconfigure the role of the suspect and the court in such a way as to circumvent the protections inherent in the adversarial system. This article considers two areas of the Guidelines, pre-charge engagement and the enforcement of a ‘thinking manner’ approach to the disclosure exercise. By considering these two expansive areas, a broader perspective of the Guidelines is taken in order to fully appreciate their significance. The impact of these newly minted Guidelines is not yet apparent, but this article postulates the potential longer-term ramifications of the changes and ultimately concludes that the Guidelines will result in further systemic incoherence which undermines suspect and defendant rights, and fundamentally reconstitutes courts as adjudicators of criminal investigations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"359 - 380\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221124362\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221124362","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文评估了最近司法部长关于刑事案件披露的指导方针。这些指导方针标志着远离对抗主义,朝着一个内部不连贯的司法系统迈进,该系统融合了管理特征,同时也增加了检察官主义的元素。虽然这些变化仍在宣扬对抗主义的论调,但有可能重新配置嫌疑人和法院的角色,从而规避对抗制度固有的保护。本条考虑了《准则》的两个领域,即指控前的参与和对披露工作采取“思维方式”方法的执行。通过考虑这两个广泛的领域,我们从更广泛的角度看待《准则》,以便充分认识到它们的重要性。这些新制定的《准则》的影响尚不明显,但这篇文章假设了这些变化的潜在长期影响,并最终得出结论,《准则》将导致进一步的系统性不一致,损害嫌疑人和被告的权利,并从根本上将法院重新组建为刑事调查的裁决者。
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
Getting people thinking and talking: An exploration of the Attorney General’s 2020 guidelines on disclosure
This article evaluates the recent Attorney General's Guidelines on disclosure in criminal cases. These Guidelines signal a further step away from adversarialism, towards an internally incoherent justice system which incorporates managerial characteristics, alongside increasing elements of inquisitorialism. Whilst still promoting the rhetoric of adversarialism, these changes have the potential to reconfigure the role of the suspect and the court in such a way as to circumvent the protections inherent in the adversarial system. This article considers two areas of the Guidelines, pre-charge engagement and the enforcement of a ‘thinking manner’ approach to the disclosure exercise. By considering these two expansive areas, a broader perspective of the Guidelines is taken in order to fully appreciate their significance. The impact of these newly minted Guidelines is not yet apparent, but this article postulates the potential longer-term ramifications of the changes and ultimately concludes that the Guidelines will result in further systemic incoherence which undermines suspect and defendant rights, and fundamentally reconstitutes courts as adjudicators of criminal investigations.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
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