No description available.

This thesis examines the conditions under which a defense of religious freedom can be successfully argued before the courts. It is acknowledged that freedom of religion has long existed in Canada but the defense of religious freedom in criminal prosecutions has not often been accepted by the Canadian Courts. The author thinks that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms puts the defense of religious freedom in a more favourable position by making it possible for Canadian judges to proceed to a balancing test that up to now they have been reluctant to use. Besides the question of the balancing test, various problems revolve around the defense of religious freedom in criminal prosecutions. The first section examines the social and historical context of religious freedom in Canada. The second section is located in a more legal perspective. A survey of the Canadian cases is made in order to comprehend the answers that Canadian judges have given in the criminal prosecutions where the defense of religious freedom was raised. In looking at the Canadian decisions on that issue, four basic problems call for solutions. The following sections deal respectively with those questions. Section 3 raises the issue of the definition of religion and religious activities. Section 4 points out a new understanding of the concept of infringement. In Section 5, the notion of balancing test is examined in light of American decisions and its application to the defense of religious freedom is considered. Finally, the necessity of a theory justifying the defense of religious freedom is explored in Section 6. In conclusion, this study stresses the impact the Charter will have upon the acceptance of the defense of religious freedom by Canadian courts. To the problems that have been identified, the author proposes some solutions, bearing in mind that the future of the defense of religious freedom in Canada depends on whether or not Canadian judges will consider that the Charter has introduced a new era in the exercise of fundamental freedoms in Canada. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

This thesis examines in detail the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which allow for the incapacitation of the 'dangerous' offender. Incapacitation has been used as an example of a growing trend in criminal justice towards viewing crime in terms of risk. This risk discourse points to the use of actuarial practices and insurance techniques in this field, with a resultant 'abstraction' of the traditional view of crime as a moral wrong. The technologies of risk assessment are central to the very power of the discourse, it has been argued that these techniques further increase the effectiveness of control and that they are a response to a growing preoccupation in society with security. It is argued that risk is, in a sense, pre-political in that as risk takes hold, overtly political responses to crime become more difficult. Given that incapacitation has been used as an example of crime as risk, this thesis takes the form of a micro-study of the above incapacitatory legislation. It assesses the degree to which this legislation can be seen to be a part of the risk discourse. It is argued that on a general level the legislation does fit within the risk model, seeking to incapacitate 'bad risks'. However, it is argued that as the legislation has been conceived, formulated and employed, it does not make use of the actuarial techniques of risk assessment - seen as so central to 'internal dynamic' of the risk discourse - to a significant extent. Rather, it is argued that the legislation embodies a politically motivated appeal to the idea of risk rather than to risk assessment itself. It is concluded that this use of risk - once shed of its attendant technologies - far from making political responses more difficult, sits well with punitive responses demanded by a government of the right. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

In this study I tackle the problem of justifying criminal punishment. Although I take heed of a traditional line of theorizing which says that punishment is an expressive and communicative endeavour, my theory breaks away from traditional approaches. This break is motivated by a recognition that theorists working in the traditional framework have failed to resolve the tension between retributivist and consequentialist reasons for punishment. I argue that punishment is justified as a type of communication from those affected by the crime to distinct and varied audiences. My naturalistic theory is structured around two fundamental themes, naturalism and pluralism about aims. The naturalism consists in the fact that the theory takes an empirically informed descriptive approach to the problem of justifying punishment. This foundation provides the resources for developing a balanced view of the moral agent which takes into account not only cognitive but also emotional capacities. This broader, deeper view of agency permits, indeed calls for, an analysis of the moral psychologies of those involved in the social practice. That analysis leads to the explanation that punishment is a type of communication of, among other things, strong but justified moral sentiments. Further development of this view suggests that punishment's various messages are intended for a variety of audiences - not just the wrongdoer but also the victim and community. That explication supports my other fundamental theme, pluralism about aims. The social institution of punishment is a complex one involving stakeholders who have differing motives and needs. Consequently, we should reject strategies which claim that punishment's justification can be reduced to one reason such as, for example, that the criminal deserves it. I argue that punishment's justification is multifaceted and complex. The arguments I put forward to justify punishment also bring to light aspects of the existing social institution that need reform. In general, they point to the need to design penal measures that promote communication among wrongdoer, victim and community. But I also call for a specific reform. I argue that the victim, whose concerns have traditionally been disregarded, should also be given a voice within the social institution. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate

A l'heure de changements fondamentaux dans la procédure pénale française, suivant un courant européen de plus en plus pressant, il est temps de faire le point conformément aux objectifs de la QPC, sur les dispositions législatives au regard de la nouvelle prérogative du conseil constitutionnel et des droits fondamentaux qu'il entend protéger. Ce nouveau contrôle à posteriori marque la fin de la toute puissance législative et renforce le pouvoir des citoyens vis-à vis du législateur plus ou moins directement. Comment les acteurs de la QPC vont jongler entre dispositions actuelles, dispositions en sursis et futures dispositions, inventaire... Notre objectif est d'apporter au praticien des outils de réflexions par rapport à la construction intellectuelle d'une QPC qui se rapporte à des droits fondamentaux connus sur leurs principes, mais qui se doivent avant tout d'être reconnus constitutionnellement pour être utiles.Seront ainsi déclinés en premier lieu des droits fondamentaux relatifs à ‘l'organisation du procès pénal, puis ceux relatifs à la protection liée aux personnes.Bien que récente, la QPC, qui s'appuie sur des principes construits depuis 50 ans, a déjà bouleversé notre paysage pénaliste en y apportant de nouveaux moyens de protections issus directement de la contestation de la loi dans son application effective là où elle ne pouvait l'être que dans un cadre restreint de contrôle a priori. / According of the new projects in French criminal procedure, between the old laws, the future laws and the laws closed to disappear, the question is how to proceed between the complex French law organization. This new procedure, allows to the actors of a criminal trial to intercede directly at the top of the pyramid of the French system quasi directly. Maybe is it time to make a kind of inventory to apprehend this new procedure.Our goal is to help lawyer to find some tools to organize the construction of a QPC relatives to fundamentals rights well known by everybody, but which need specially to be known and accepted by French Conseil Constitutionnel to be used.We are going to organize our work, first, by the fundamentals rights around the organization of French criminal process, and second by the fundamental rights around the criminal or his victim inside the trial.This QPC seems to be new, but this is only according a technical view point, because the bases of each QPC find its own roots built for 50 years by the Conseil Constitutionnel in its a priori control moved in a a posteriori one which can be used by everyone. And everybody can note than QPC has already changed the French criminal process by its results.

The Issue of Pre-trial Detention in Criminal Procedure This thesis deals with the topic of the institute of pre-trial Detention. Personal freedom is a fundamental human right, but it is not unlimited. It is the detention that significantly affects this right. Both in the case of legislative process and in the application of legal instruments, it is necessary to insist on the greatest possible emphasis on the rights of persons against whom criminal procedure is being conducted. The thesis is divided into eight chapters. The first chapter describes the general features of detention, especially the concept of detention, the conditions under which detention can be applied and the principles influencing the detention. The second chapter deals with the international and constitutional legal framework of detention. Topics of presumption of innocence and limits of restriction of personal freedom. The third part is devoted to a summary of the historical development of the detention in the Czech lands from the 19th century to the present day. Chapter four is focused on material aspect of law concerning detention. The individual reasons for detention are discussed, as well as the institutes alternative to detention. Special mention is given to electronic control in cases where the detention was replaced by...

The majority of criminal cases are disposed by the mechanism of plea negotiation in the federal jurisdiction of the United States. This procedure has replaced adversarial trial tradition of the U.S. criminal justice system for decades. Since 2014, China has initiated plea negotiation in the criminal justice system. Following the efforts of legislation and judiciary, China has formulated a Sinicized concessional criminal justice system. Up to now, over 86% criminal cases in China are handled with the plea negotiation system without appeals. Motivated by the same goals of procedural economy and systematic efficiency, these two nations have developed the plea negotiation system into the core driver of criminal justice dynamics. This ubiquity has led the similarities appearing in the adversarial system of the US and the inquisitorial system of China substantially and procedurally. In the light of the costs and benefits analysis, it raises research questions as follows: what needs to be ensured where a defendant posits in a plea negotiation process? What are the costs and benefits of defendant’s decision making? Whether this cost-saving procedure achieves systemic efficiency and fairness? What can be rebuilt for improving the current system? This article is aimed to propose some new practical ideas that may improve the transparency and the fairness of plea negotiation process, and finally earn trust from the criminal defendants and the public at large. Through a comparative study, this article outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the plea negotiation systems in the U.S. and China. Thereafter, this article channels the practical measures to rebuild the plea negotiation system in these two nations. It is also aimed to contribute some insights to other nations’ re-consideration of reforming the negotiated criminal justice system in the near future. / Temple University. James E. Beasley School of Law / Law

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the Russian culture and citizens' perceived fairness of the new Criminal Procedural Code of Russia of 2001 (CPC of 2001). The CPC of 2001 is a key policy in the Russian criminal law reform with the purpose of implementing adversarial procedure elements in Russia. The existing literature has documented the lack of public support along with observed violations of the CPC's major provisions which as made this an important area for study. It is theorized that the apparent contradiction between the underlying values of the Russian culture, and CPC's adversarial procedure that reflects anti-cultural values, are responsible for the lack of substantial public support and acceptance of the CPC of 2001. The theory of motivational values developed by Schwartz (1990) is used as a framework to examine the Russian culture. Damaska's (1986) theory of procedural models is used to examine the adversarial elements of the new CPC of 2001. The group value theory of fairness is employed to examine the relationships between Russian cultural values and the public opinion about the criminal procedural law (Lind & Tyler, 1988). The study used a multi-stage stratified random sample of 1,588 Russian residents to explore the relationship between the culture and the perceived fairness of the CPC of 2001. The sample is representative of the Russian Federation population. The data is analyzed through four structural-equation models, a set of non-parametric tests, and descriptive statistical analysis. The findings of this thesis confirmed that cultural values in Russia are predominantly collective. On average, 69% of Russian respondents reported that collective values play a very important role in their life. The type of prevailing values was dependent on the demographic characteristics of the sample: age, gender, place of residence, level of education, marital status, and household income. It was found that the majority of Russian citizens believe that the inquisitional criminal procedure is an ideal of fair law. On average, 72% supported the inquisitorial procedural model in Russia. Unlike the adversarial procedure, the inquisitorial procedural model is not based on competition between the equal parties of prosecution and defense. Instead, it is viewed as a cooperative process between the judge, prosecutor and defense in their inquiry into the circumstances of the case. The adversarial procedural model was not supported by most citizens. Only 33.5% reported that the adversarial procedural model can be considered fair. The study corroborated that the new CPC was not fully supported by the majority of respondents. An average of 27.5% of respondents in Russia reported that the CPC of 2001 is a fair law, in comparison to 72.5% who think that the CPC of 2001 is unfair. The findings validated that the CPC of 2001's inclusion of adversarial procedural elements contradict key values of the contemporary Russian culture. It is concluded that the CPC of 2001 should be reformed to facilitate citizen acceptance. Greater acceptance will support the attempt to advance the democratization of the criminal process through increased civil rights while simultaneously enhancing positive social control. It is proposed that the planned policy reforms that contain additional elements of the adversarial criminal procedure be introduced in a phased manner. It is also recommended that the adversarial procedure values should be publicized through public awareness educational programs. The data analysis also suggests that confounding factors such as citizen distrust of the criminal justice institutions can contribute to problems associated with acceptance of the criminal law reform. The research model developed for this study can be used to examine policies related to criminal law reform in other former Soviet Union countries.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Plea bargaining describes the act of negotiating and concluding agreements in the criminal procedure. Usually the prosecutor and the accused agree that the accused will plead guilty to the charge brought against him in exchange for some concession from the prosecution. The bargain is not limited to the presented subject. Agreements can contain the non-prosecution or reduction of charges, specific terms of punishment, conditions of probation and much more. In many countries the vast majority of criminal cases are disposed by way of bargaining. Plea bargaining breaches with the concept of a conventional trial and consequently clashes with well-known fundamental principles of the criminal procedure. Moreover, bargaining before criminal trials strongly implicates the constitutionally secured rights of the accused as well as of the public interest. Although plea bargaining is broadly criticized for its implications on essential rules and principles, the use of the practice is widespread. There are clear benefits to the participant, such as to avoid a lengthy trial with an uncertain outcome. South Africa, as a legal system with roots in the common law, adopted the procedure in 2001 with the implementation of s 105A into the Criminal Procedure Act. The German legislature in 2009 decided to regulate what until then had been informal practice by inserting several rules into the German criminal procedure, amongst which s 257c contains the main provisions. The implementation of bargains into the German law has produced tensions particularly due to the inquisitorial basis of the criminal procedure that stands in civil law tradition. This thesis evaluates how South African and German provisions on plea bargaining differ, i.e., on which different backgrounds they are based on, how the bargain procedures are construed and to what extent statutory plea bargaining in both legal systems displaces informal traditional agreements. The comparison is enriching under the aspect that both countries implemented the bargain procedure but had to place them on fundamentally different grounds. Having presented the grounds that motivated the research (Chapter I.), the origins of plea bargaining in general as well as the legal development toward the present statutory provisions in both countries are examined (Chapter II.). The bargain procedures are compared in detail (Chapter IV.). A large part focuses on particular problem areas and how both legal systems cope with them (Chapter V.). The result of the research is summarized in a conclusion (Chapter VI.). / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Pleitonderhandeling kan beskryf word as die proses van onderhandel en die aangaan van ooreenkomste in die strafproses. Die vervolging en die verdediging sal gewoonlik ooreenkom dat die beskuldigde skuldig sal pleit in ruil vir een of meer toegewings deur die vervolging. Ooreenkomste kan insluit die nie-vervolging of vermindering van klagte, spesifieke aspekte van vonnis, voorwaardes van parool en talle meer. In ‘n hele aantal lande word die oorgrote meerderheid van sake afgehandel by wyse van pleitooreenkomste. Dit is egter duidelik dat pleitooreenkomste in konflik is met die konsep van ‘n gewone verhoor en is gevolglik ook in konflik met van die grondbeginsels van die strafprosesreg. Dit raak ook die grondwetlike regte van beskuldigdes en die belange van die samelewing. Ten spyte van hierdie kritiek en meer, is die praktyk van pleitonderhandeling wydverspreid. Daar blyk besliste voordeel te wees vir die deelnemende partye, byvoorbeeld die vermyding van lang verhore met onsekere beslissings. Suid-Afrika (met ‘n sterk gemeenregtelike tradisie) het die praktyk van pleitonderhandeling formeel en per statuut in 2001 aanvaar, met die aanvaarding en invoeging van artikel 105A in die Strafproseswet, 1977. Die wetgewer in Duitsland het in 2009 besluit om die informele praktyk van pleitonderhandeling te formaliseer met die invoeging van sekere bepalings in die Duitse strafproseskode. Hierdie invoeging het sekere spanning veroorsaak in die Duitse strafproses, veral weens die inkwisitoriese tradisie in daardie jurisdiksie. Hierdie tesis evalueer die Suid-Afrikaanse en Duitse benaderings tot pleitonderhandelinge, hoe dit verskil, die verskillende regskulturele kontekste waarbinne dit plaasvind, en die mate waartoe pleitonderhandeling in beide sisteme informele ooreenkomste vervang het. Die vergelykende ondersoek bevind dat beide stelsels die pleitooreenkoms ingestel het, maar dit moes doen mvn fundamenteel verskillende gronde. Hoofstuk I (die motivering vir die studie), word gevolg deur ‘n historiese ondersoek (Hoofstuk II). Die verdere hoofstukke fokus op die regsvergelykende aspekte en die gevolgtrekkings word in Hoofstuk VI uiteengesit.

No momento em que se mostrou difícil reprimir o crime no âmbito interno dos países, a comunidade internacional passou a perseguir, também, os efeitos e proventos do crime, através do cumprimento de medidas cautelares patrimoniais para bloqueio e confisco de bens do acusado existentes no exterior. Tal intento foi atingido por meio da cooperação jurídica internacional, cujos instrumentos estão sujeitos ao due process of law. Contudo, por haver distintos sistemas processuais, o estranhamento do tratamento dispensado pelo ordenamento jurídico de um Estado em determinada matéria de Direito Processual Penal pode deflagrar, perante outro Estado, argumentos contrários ao atendimento do pedido de assistência jurídica, inviabilizando o fluxo cooperacional. Por isso, várias questões surgem quando se desloca as medidas cautelares patrimoniais penais no contexto da cooperação jurídica. A presente dissertação abordará o tema da cooperação jurídica internacional em matéria penal sob a perspectiva do devido processo legal e, a partir desse enfoque, identificará conflitos que eventualmente surgem dos pedidos de assistência jurídica para cumprimento de medidas cautelares patrimoniais. / Once it became difficult to restrain crime under domestic jurisdiction, international communities also started to go after the proceeds and instrumentalities of offenses, through enforcement of provisional measures, aiming at immobilization and forfeiture of defendant´s assets existing abroad. Said target was achieved by legal international cooperation, whose instruments are subject to the due process of law. However, as there are different procedure systems, the strangeness caused by treatment offered by the legal system of a State in a certain matter of Criminal Procedure Law may deflagrate before another State, opposite arguments to fulfillment of legal assistance order, making unfeasible the cooperation flow. That is why several issues come up when criminal provisional measures are moved in the context of legal cooperation. The current dissertation will discuss the international legal cooperation in criminal matter under the light of due process of law and thereinafter, it will identify conflicts that may eventually appear from orders of legal assistance for the enforcement of provisional measures.