‘A critical analysis of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 - ‘The shoot to kill debate’ sought to investigate the rationale and necessity behind the call for yet another amendment of section 49, that purports to clarify the rules under which police are allowed to use their firearms. Bold statements emerged from South Africa’s leaders and several politicians, urging the police to ‘shoot to kill’, and may have the effect of threatening the country’s young and vulnerable constitutional democracy. The research comprised an historical overview of section 49, encompassing the use of force pre- and post- Judicial Matters Second Amendment Act 122 of 1998, followed by an overview of the current section 49. On the face of it, section 49 violates some constitutionally protected rights, among which are the right to life, to freedom and security, against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent. The ‘new’ section 49 however, withstood Constitutional muster as set out in Re: S v Walters&another. The research proceeded to contrast the current section 49, against the common law defence of private defence. A private individual invoking the defence of private defence is weighed against the law enforcement official invoking the defence under section 49. It is argued that the level of proof in the latter is higher as opposed to the former, resulting in the contention that the law enforcement officer is unfairly discriminated against. The reverse onus, whereby the onus is shifted onto the arrestor, is further canvassed. In an endeavour to interpret the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of South Africa Act 108 of 1996, the researcher considered international instruments such as the Canadian Constitution, where the use of force in effecting an arrest is regarded as legitimate, under certain conditions. In concluding the research it was established that the voiceferous calls, for the police to be able to ‘shoot to kill’, is both unnecessary and irresponsible. Section 49 has survived constitutional scrutiny. The use of force when effecting an arrest is sanctioned, provided that it is in line with the constitutional provisions where the sanctity of human life is respected and emphasized. The police do not need more powers to use deadly force because they already have all the powers that they need! There is a lack of knowledge and understanding by the leaders on the application and interpretation of section 49. Proper and effective training of police in Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law, specifically in the interpretation and understanding of section 49, with proper guidelines to limit the potentially excessive scope of section 49, is identified. The training should also include the mind set that ‘shooting to kill’, should not be taken lightly, should be limited and confined to what is reasonable and proportional in the circumstances and should only be exercised as a last resort A fully capacitated and well resourced police force will also empower and enable police officials. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Public Law / unrestricted

The process of extradition is a vital component of International Criminal Law as a means of ensuring the suppression and prevention of international crimes. It is the internationally accepted method used by states to surrender an offender back to the state where the alleged offence was committed so that such offender can be tried and punished. Without such process, and with the ease of modern global travel, offenders would, in all likelihood be able to escape prosecution and punishment. Most organized democratic societies recognize that the suppression of crime is necessary for peace and order in society and that extradition is an effective tool to be used to bring to justice a fugitive attempting to evade the law by fleeing to another country. What follows is a discussion, firstly on the theory of extradition and secondly on the effect that human rights has had on the law of extradition. The theory of extradition involves an analysis of extradition from its ancient roots to its position in society today. With regard to extradition in South Africa, reference is made to the various periods of the country’s history. The colonial era before South Africa acquired Republican status in 1961 is referred to in order to establish a basis for the present law of extradition in South Africa. The period during the apartheid era after achieving Republican status in 1961 is discussed in order to show how and why South Africa moved away from its common law roots based on English Law. This era is also of importance as it led to the introduction of the present Extradition Act 67 of 1962. Finally the current position spanning from 1994 to the law as it stands in South Africa today, as influenced by the introduction of Constitutional law, is examined. The rule on non-inquiry is also examined in order to compare the traditional approach by states, where state sovereignty was of paramount importance, with the modern trend of emphasis being placed on fundamental human rights. The methods in terms of which extradition is accomplished, both in South Africa and internationally is also discussed. Such reference to the theory and nature of extradition is done to provide general background on the complex issue to be discussed. The crux of the treatise relates to the impact that the rise in status of fundamental human rights has had on the extradition process. Reference will be made to aspects relating to the protection of the offender’s procedural rights as well as to the protection of the individuals right to life, dignity and bodily integrity. Such examination will refer to the position in South African law as well as the position on the international front. Attention is given to developments in case law as well as to how the courts approach the tension between extradition and human rights both locally and internationally. Finally, in conclusion it is submitted that the extradition process is the most effective procedure available to return an offender to the state seeking his prosecution. The process has however, in modern times adapted to uphold the rights of the offender whose return is requested. This can be seen from the provisions included in recent treaties and conventions, most notably the European Convention on Extradition to which South Africa became a party in 2003. Extradition is clearly concerned with the balancing of the offender’s human rights and the need for effective enforcement of criminal law.

What happens when the journalist’s ethical obligation to protect the identity of an anonymous source of information clashes with the established legal principal that all relevant evidence needs to be placed before a court? It is common cause that the media is dependant on sources for information. If that were not the case, the media would merely relay obvious information on events already in the public domain. Some sources prefer to remain anonymous, be it for fear of retribution, fear for their own safety or that of their families or just plain shame. Whatever the case may be, the journalist remains under an ethical obligation not to disclose the identity of such a source of information. Although virtually all professional codes of ethics for journalists has some reference to journalists’ duty to protect the identity of their sources of information, at common law the South African journalist has no such privilege as is evinced by the judgment handed down by Hill J in S v Pogrund 1961 (3) SA 868 (TPD) who said that [s]uch principles … confer no privilege in law on any journalist. The most common justification given by supporters of a journalistic privilege is that sources would “dry up” should journalists be forced to disclose the identities of their sources of information. In the writer’s opinion, the question of a journalist’s right to protect the identity of an anonymous source of information or journalistic privilege falls squarely within the ambit of freedom of expression. Section 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes inter alia freedom of the press and other media and the freedom to receive or impart information or ideas. Any interference with the delicate relationship between journalist and source therefore will theoretically be a limitation on the rights guaranteed in section 16 of the Constitution. In recent times however since the inception of the new democratic dispensation South African courts have been more inclined to accept that journalists have, at least in principle, the right to protect their sources of information. This is unfortunately not enough as it is quite clear that the notion still exists to view the media as a primary source of evidence, rather than one of the cornerstones of democracy should a journalist be suspected of having information that could be relevant in a case before the court. This is clear from the recent Hefer Commission of Enquiry saga where a journalist was summonsed outright to testify as to her sources of information. South Africa is lagging behind other western legal systems where the journalist’s privilege is seen as a core element of press freedom. Protection for this principle has been formally introduced in foreign legislation. An amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act could be the answer, as could new legislation to protect the media from testifying regarding the identity of informants. Ultimately however, argument of the question before the Constitutional Court would be the ideal solution. / Dissertation (Magister Legum (Public Law))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Public Law / unrestricted

“It has been said that the victim of a sexual assault is actually assaulted twice- once by the offender and once by the criminal justice system.”1 South Africa’s rape shield provision is contained in section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Act.2 The purpose of its enactment is to protect a complainant in a sexual offence matter from secondary victimisation during the trial as far as possible, by restricting the type of evidence that is admissible and the circumstances under which such evidence can be found to be admissible. This rationale has come under attack for its effect on the fair trial rights of the accused. There has been no challenge to the constitutionality of section 227 before a court yet. However, there are numerous rumblings of discontent at the consequences of a provision that restricts evidence that could be necessary to prevent a wrongful conviction. This paper seeks to consider the constitutional debates surrounding section 227 and to determine whether, to the extent that they may prove to be constitutionally problematic, the potential constitutional challenges are justifiable under a limitations analysis. It is impossible to engage with the constitutionality of section 227 without first discussing the rationale behind rape shield laws in general. The structure of the paper is therefore as follows: firstly, the history and purpose of rape shield laws will be investigated, and secondly, the history of section 227 under South African law will be discussed.

The Impact of Language Diversity on the Right to Fair Trial in International Criminal Proceedings is a study that explores the influence of the dynamic factor of language on fair trial at the international level and during domestic prosecution of international crimes. Chapter 5 constitutes a case study of the International Crimes Division of the High Court of Uganda, a contemporary specialised ‗court‘ emerging within the framework of the statute of the International Criminal Court, by virtue of the principle of complementarity. By way of empirical research, interviewing and jurisprudential analysis, It is sought to assess the implications of conducting a trial in more than one language, on due process. This thesis reveals that the language debate is as old as international criminal justice, but due to misrepresentation of the status of language fair trial rights in international law, the debate has not yielded concrete reforms. Language is the core foundation for justice. It is the means through which the rights of the accused are realised. Linguistic complexities such as misunderstandings, failures in translation and cultural distance among participants in international criminal trials affect courtroom communication, the presentation and the perception of the evidence hence challenging the foundations of trial fairness. In conclusion, language fair trial rights are priority rights situated in the minimum guarantees of fair criminal trial; the obligation of the court to ensure fair trial or accord the accused person a fair hearing comprises the duty to guarantee linguistic rights. This thesis also entails recommendations on how to address the phenomenon.

No description available.

O presente trabalho tem como escopo central a análise da regra do prejuízo relacionada às nulidades no processo penal. Corolário da teoria da instrumentalidade das formas, a regra do prejuízo dispõe que somente será reconhecida a nulidade se do ato viciado resultar algum prejuízo para a acusação ou para a defesa. A despeito de sua importância para a construção de um modelo finalístico, referida categoria do prejuízo vem sendo aplicada de forma caótica pela jurisprudência pátria. Na realidade, o entendimento daquilo que de fato configura o prejuízo para efeitos do artigo 563 do Código de Processo Penal se perdeu em meio a decisões controversas e confusas acerca do tema. A regra, inicialmente adotada no processo civil, foi transportada ao processo penal sem as devidas cautelas e desprovida dos necessários ajustes. Inexiste uma sistematização mínima para aferição do prejuízo, sendo certo que hodiernamente se confere uma discricionariedade absoluta ao magistrado para determinar se no caso concreto há alguma lesão às partes. Nesse cenário, a precípua função da forma, que é assegurar uma proteção ao acusado contra eventuais arbitrariedades do Estado, muitas vezes é deixada de lado. Toda essa problemática tem gerado um ambiente instável para correta aplicação das nulidades, o que acaba por acarretar uma notável insegurança jurídica. O presente estudo tem a pretensão de propor um modelo racional de aferição do prejuízo, com base no qual o magistrado encontrará critérios mais claros para a aplicação das nulidades no processo penal. / This research aims to analyze the harmless error rule, strictly related to the subject of nullities in the criminal procedure. As a deployment of the theory of instrumentality of the procedural forms, the harmless error rule provides that a mistake will only cause the nullity of the procedure if there is evidence to support that the prosecution or the defense were actually harmed by that error. Although extremely important for the incorporation of teleological model of nullity, the mentioned harmless error rule has been wrongfully applied by Brazilian courts. In reality, the understanding of the actual meaning of the word harm, as per article 563 of the Criminal Procedure, has been lost throughout so many different confusing and controversial court decisions. The harmless error rule, initially used in civil cases, was brought to criminal procedure without the needed adjustments. There is no minimum systematization in order to identify a harmful error and, therefore, nowadays the judge has total discretion to determine in each case the severity of the error. Given this reality, the most important function of a procedural form, which is to protect the defendant against eventual arbitrary measures committed by the State, is normally forgotten. All these issues have caused an unstable background regarding the correct application of the nullities, leading to a noticeable legal uncertainty in this subject. This research has the intention to come up with a rational model of application of the harmless error rule, based on which the judges will find the necessary criteria to recognize nullities in criminal procedures.

论文对中国的刑事和解制度进行了实证研究。刑事和解被官方视为通过加害方同受害方自愿达成和解促进社会和谐，并通过赋予案件当事人解决案件的权力实现“案结事了。这一程序也被认为弥补了以对抗制为基础的普通刑事司法程序的所谓的不足。 / 基于2008年和2010年在中国三个地区进行的案卷调查和访谈，论文指出这项制度严重侵害犯罪嫌疑人、被告人及被害人（统称“当事人）的权利并损害公平正义。虽然案卷显示刑事和解遵循为其设计的程序及确立的原则并取得了良好效果，访谈却揭示了完全相反的情况。访谈显示，自愿性，这一被视为刑事和解的主要优势的原则，遭到严重破坏。实践中，官员们主导着刑事和解全过程。此外，赔偿成为了这一程序的唯一焦点，造成其对经济上处于弱势地位的犯罪嫌疑人或被告人的不公平。研究发现在一些案件中，刑事和解程序结束后，矛盾依然存在甚至恶化了。 / 这些发现令刑事和解呈现出中国刑事司法制度的三个根本性问题。首先，保护当事人权利的法律规则常常被执行这些规则的法官或检察官忽视并取而代之“潜规则。 这些“潜规则主要是由政治目标驱动的绩效考核标准和来自诸如政法委的其他组织的干预而形成。此外，中国的刑事司法程序反映了专制主义、家长制及教育型（以思想改造为目的）的刑事司法体制，而当事人的权利被视为次于这一政治目的。最后，国家在保护当事人获得刑事附带民事诉讼赔偿的权利方面亦未承担应负的责任。 / 论文指出，依靠和解来解决刑事案件会令这些已影响普通刑事司法程序的问题更加严重，因为这一程序旨在弱化对程序性权利的保障及削弱刑事司法程序的对抗性。因此，刑事和解制度或是中国正逐渐远离其领导者曾明确确立的法治目标的一个信号。 / This thesis examines the practice of ‘criminal reconciliation’ (xingshi hejie) in the People’s Republic of China by means of empirical research. ‘Criminal reconciliation’ is officially understood as a mechanism to promote a ‘harmonious society’ (hexie shehui) through voluntary offender-victim reconciliation and bringing ‘closure’ (an jie shi liao) to criminal case in a way that empowers the parties. It has been designed as a mechanism that overcomes perceived deficiencies of the ordinary, in principle adversarial criminal justice process. / Based on case examples and interviews conducted in three localities in mainland China in 2008 and 2010, however, this thesis argues that this mechanism may infringe the rights of suspects and defendants as well as of alleged victims (summarily referred to as ‘the parties’) in criminal cases, and that it may lead to injustice. While the case files accessed for the purpose of this research purport to document a well-functioning process of criminal reconciliation in accordance with the rules and principles supposed to govern it, interviews provide a drastically different picture. In practice, the criminal justice process was not characterized by the principle of voluntariness supposed to be one of its main advantages; rather, the officials in charge dominated the process. In addition, the entire process exclusively focused on compensation, so it was potentially unfair to economically weak suspects and defendants. It was also found in some cases that the conflict between the parties still existed or had worsened at the end of the criminal reconciliation programmes. / On the basis of these findings, it is argued that criminal reconciliation throws light on fundamental problems with the wider criminal justice system. First, officials in the criminal justice system, routinely ignore certain legal rules protecting the parties’ rights and to some extent replace these rules with ‘hidden rules’ (qian guize), whose content is largely shaped by politically driven performance assessment criteria, as well as in some cases by intervention from other entities such the Political-Legal Committee. Second, the criminal proceedings in China reflect an authoritarian, paternalistic and educational (thought-reform-based) approach to criminal justice; the parties’ rights are regarded as secondary to this political end. Third, the State does not take sufficient responsibility to protect the victim’s right to get compensation in the civil litigation collateral to criminal proceedings. / In conclusion, this thesis argues that resolving criminal cases through ‘criminal reconciliation’ may aggravate the problems already affecting the ordinary criminal justice process, because it is a mechanism designed to weaken procedural rights protections, and eliminate the adversarial character of the criminal justice process. Thus the promotion of ‘criminal reconciliation’ may be one of several signs that China is deviating from the path of rule of law development that was once the leadership’s clearly stated goal. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Jiang, Jue. / "December 2012." / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references. / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstract and appendixes also in Chinese. / Chapter Chapter I: --- The Criminal Reconciliation System (xingshi hejie) In China --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- The idea of ‘criminal reconciliation’ (xingshi hejie) --- p.4 / Chapter 1.2 --- The implementation of criminal reconciliation --- p.15 / Chapter 1.2.1 --- The procedure and scope of application of criminal reconciliation --- p.16 / Chapter 1.2.2 --- Criminal reconciliation and the normal criminal procedure --- p.24 / Chapter 1.2.3 --- The involvement of lawyers in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.27 / Chapter 1.2.4 --- Different criminal reconciliation practices nationwide --- p.29 / Chapter 1.3 --- Further reported practices in criminal reconciliation --- p.40 / Chapter 1.3.1 --- Practice of criminal reconciliation outside its stipulated scope --- p.42 / Chapter 1.3.2 --- Cooperation among authorities: ‘duijie’ and ‘liandong’ mechanisms --- p.43 / Chapter 1.3.3 --- Wider involvement of participants in criminal reconciliation --- p.46 / Chapter 1.4 --- Summary --- p.48 / Chapter Chapter II: --- The Scholarly Debate Around Criminal Reconciliation --- p.51 / Chapter 2.1 --- Scholarly debates of criminal reconciliation practices --- p.52 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Positive appraisals --- p.52 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Criticisms --- p.60 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- The debate concerning uses of criminal reconciliation outside its stipulated scope --- p.66 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- The debate concerning lawyers’ role in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.68 / Chapter 2.2 --- Scholarly debates of justifications for criminal reconciliation --- p.70 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Differences between criminal reconciliation and restorative justice --- p.72 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- A critique of the theory of ‘private cooperation’ (sili hezuo) --- p.77 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- A critique of the theory of ‘third realm’ (di san lingyu) --- p.79 / Chapter 2.2.4 --- A critique of the theory of ‘civil mediation’ --- p.88 / Chapter 2.3 --- Summary --- p.89 / Chapter Chapter III: --- Criminal Reconciliation In Practice: Evidence From Official Case Files --- p.91 / Chapter 3.1 --- The motivation for the empirical study --- p.91 / Chapter 3.1.1 --- The deficiencies of doctrinal research --- p.91 / Chapter 3.1.2 --- Existing empirical studies: findings and remaining concerns --- p.94 / Chapter 3.2 --- An overview of criminal reconciliation practices in the three fieldwork locations --- p.100 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- Selection of cases --- p.101 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- The basic statistical facts --- p.103 / Chapter 3.2.3 --- The cases eligible for criminal reconciliation --- p.105 / Chapter 3.2.4 --- The suspects/defendants eligible for criminal reconciliation --- p.106 / Chapter 3.2.5 --- The procedure of criminal reconciliation and follow-up programmes --- p.-106 / Chapter 3.2.6 --- Duration of criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.127 / Chapter 3.3 --- An analysis of the practice of criminal reconciliation relying on the evidence from official case files --- p.138 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- The procedure of criminal reconciliation in practice --- p.138 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- Achievements and failures of the official goals in practice --- p.141 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- Questioning the official design of the criminal reconciliation procedure --- p.143 / Chapter 3.3.4 --- Conflicting official goals --- p.145 / Chapter Chapter IV: --- The Process Of Criminal Reconciliation Programmes: Evidence From Interviews --- p.147 / Chapter 4.1 --- The initiation stage --- p.148 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Violations of eligibility requirements --- p.148 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- No presumption of innocence --- p.155 / Chapter 4.1.3 --- Violations of the principle of voluntariness --- p.156 / Chapter 4.2 --- The criminal reconciliation meeting --- p.162 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Appropriate communication between the parties in some reconciliation meetings --- p.163 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Focus on bargaining over compensation --- p.166 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- Private agreement reached prior to the formal reconciliation meeting --- p.-171 / Chapter 4.2.4 --- Pressures on the parties to reach agreements --- p.172 / Chapter 4.2.5 --- Compensation as the main content of criminal reconciliation agreements --- p.173 / Chapter 4.2.6 --- Clauses added by officials into criminal reconciliation agreements --- p.174 / Chapter 4.3 --- Factors affecting official decisions in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.175 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Focus on fulfillment of compensation obligations --- p.175 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- The lack of judicial independence --- p.179 / Chapter 4.4 --- Insights into follow-up programmes --- p.182 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- Limited substantiation of findings in case file examination --- p.182 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- The effects and problems of the follow-up programmes --- p.185 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- The potential failure of the official aim of correcting the suspect/defendant in criminal reconciliation cases without follow-up programmes --- p.186 / Chapter 4.5 --- Summary --- p.187 / Chapter Chapter V: --- The Participants Of Criminal Reconciliation Programmes: Evidence From Interviews --- p.191 / Chapter 5.1 --- Official involvement in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.191 / Chapter 5.1.1 --- Officials’ leading and dominant role --- p.192 / Chapter 5.1.2 --- Officials’ positive comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.200 / Chapter 5.1.3 --- Officials’ negative comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.203 / Chapter 5.1.4 --- Officials’ expressed concerns about criminal reconciliation --- p.205 / Chapter 5.1.5 --- Difficulties faced by officials in charge of criminal reconciliation --- p.208 / Chapter 5.2 --- The parties participating in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.213 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- The victim’s participation under coercion --- p.213 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- No presumption of innocence --- p.218 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- Active roles for parties only in private reconciliation --- p.222 / Chapter 5.2.4 --- The parties’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.225 / Chapter 5.2.5 --- The parties’ difficulties in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.229 / Chapter 5.3 --- The lawyers as actors (participants) in criminal reconciliation cases --- p.232 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Lawyers’ role as mediators between officials and the parties --- p.232 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Some lawyers’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.235 / Chapter 5.4 --- The role of other participants in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.237 / Chapter 5.4.1 --- Serving officials’ purposes --- p.238 / Chapter 5.4.2 --- Other participants’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.239 / Chapter 5.5 --- Summary --- p.241 / Chapter Chapter VI: --- Understanding Wider Problems in the Criminal Justice System through the Lens of Criminal Reconciliation --- p.245 / Chapter 6.1 --- Contradictory rules and ‘hidden rules’ (qian guize) --- p.246 / Chapter 6.1.1 --- The prevalence of ‘hidden rules’ and ‘parallel systems’ --- p.247 / Chapter 6.1.2 --- Internal and external pressures as the reason for ‘hidden rules’ and ‘parallel systems’ --- p.248 / Chapter 6.1.3 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.261 / Chapter 6.2 --- Criminal justice through ‘correction’ (jiaozheng) and ‘thought reform’ (sixiang gaizao) --- p.263 / Chapter 6.2.1 --- The concept of ‘correction’ in the wider criminal process --- p.264 / Chapter 6.2.2 --- The ideology of ‘thought reform’ underlying ‘correction’ --- p.271 / Chapter 6.2.3 --- A critique of thought reform --- p.274 / Chapter 6.2.4 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.277 / Chapter 6.3 --- The State’s failure to enforce victims’ claims to compensation through civil litigation --- p.278 / Chapter 6.3.1 --- The reason leading to the problem with enforceability --- p.280 / Chapter 6.3.2 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.282 / Chapter Chapter VII: --- Conclusion --- p.283 / Chapter Appendix I --- Sentencing Normalization Form of the Criminal Division of B District People’s Court [in Xi’an] --- p.288 / Chapter Appendix II --- Article 277-279 of The Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2012 Revision) --- p.291 / Chapter Appendix III --- Chapter 21of Supreme People’s Court Judicial Interpretation on Some Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law (Draft Issued to Solicit Opinions) --- p.293 / Chapter Appendix IV --- Opinions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on the Handling of Minor Criminal Cases When the Parties Have Reached Reconciliation --- p.302 / Chapter Appendix V --- Opinions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Implementing the Criminal Policy of Combining Severity with Leniency in Procuratorial work --- p.314 / Chapter Appendix VI --- Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Implementing the Criminal Policy of Combining Severity with Leniency --- p.335 / Bibliography --- p.368

Sentencing reform and "tough on crime" policies have assisted in the inflation of the United States' prison population by nearly 400% over the last 50 years. In 2003, justice reinvestment was conceptualized as a way to decrease recidivism and remedy the exorbitant correctional spending by reinvesting funds on rehabilitation and reentry assistance to those leaving custodial institutions. Early implementations of justice reinvestment in Connecticut and Texas achieved both savings and reductions in prison populations. This led to the creation of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance in 2010. Officials of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative sought states who were willing to achieve bi-partisan agreements on reform and reinvestment strategies to assist in the creation and implementation of this new policy. The State of Oregon began this process in early 2012 and completed the process with the enrollment of HB 3194 in July of 2013. Despite the implementation of this policy in 17 states, few evaluations have been performed on the effectiveness of justice reinvestment policy. This study employs a quasi-experimental time series analysis of corrections data from the State of Oregon, the high usage county, medium usage county, and the low usage county proxies to assess the effectiveness of the law. Counties were selected as proxies for levels of justice reinvestment grant usage. These data include prison admissions (June 2010-July 2016), probation admissions (June 2010-July 2016), and the number of individuals on community supervision (July 2010-December 2015). Analyses reveal significant changes in all measures. The results of this study have several implications for current and future implementations of justice reinvestment.

published_or_final_version / Criminology / Master / Master of Social Sciences