Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 280-292).

This project is designed to take an in-depth look at drug court, the most common form of specialized courts. This project will further elaborate our understanding of team decision-making. The fact that the drug court is collaborative rather than adversarial has been hailed as one of the key innovations that makes drug court better able to respond to addiction than the traditional criminal justice system. So far, very little work has been done on how the team members work together in the court. I will show that, among team members, there is ambivalence over how to understand addiction and what to expect from clients. In addition to this conflict at the organizational-level, I will also show that staff members experience conflict with each other over why and how punishment should be used. I conducted a four-month case study of a drug court located in a medium-sized city in the southwestern United States. I supplemented this case study with observations at a second drug court located in small city in the same state. Based on this research, I will show that the drug court staff experiences conflict over how to treat addiction effectively. I will then argue that the drug court staff’s conflicting expectations of clients actually encourages lying about rule-breaking behavior. Finally, I will focus on negotiations between the judge and counselors as they respond to troubled clients. By focusing here on the tensions that arise in the daily work of drug court, I will show that there are some essential problems in drug court design that still need to be worked out at ideological and practical levels. By shining light on these conflicts, I hope to help drug court practitioners to think about how we can improve on the program. / text

This article is presented in five parts. The first part consists of this introduction, which is followed by a discussion of the Canadian legal position in part two. The cases of R v Collins1 and R v Stillman,2 as well as the impact of these cases on the Canadian admissibility framework, will be explored. In addition, the adapted fair trial requirement developed and applied by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Grant,3 and the revised admissibility framework recently introduced by the Supreme Court of Canada in the appeal of R v Grant,4 will be analysed. Part three discusses the jurisprudence of s 35(5) of South Africa’s Constitution. An alternative admissibility framework is suggested in part four, followed by a short conclusion in part five. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996,5 provides that South African courts may, when interpreting the Bill of Rights, seek guidance from comparable foreign law jurisdictions in order to give meaning to its provisions.6 The South African Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Courts,7 as well as scholarly writers,8 have indicated that the provisions contained in s 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms9 and s 35(5) of the Bill of Rights are strikingly similar.10 This could be one of the reasons why the South African courts have opted to be guided by their Canadian counterparts.11 The Canadian admissibility frameworks, established to determine whether unconstitutionally obtained evidence should be received or excluded, have for decades been the subject of rigorous scholarly criticism. As a result thereof, and the subsequent reaction by the Ontario Court of Appeal, the admissibility framework has recently been revised by the Supreme Court of Canada. Given that s 35(5) of the South African Constitution is modelled on s 24(2) of the Canadian Charter, the manner in which the courts of that country have grappled with the interpretation of s 24(2) is of particular importance to South Africa.12

Στην παρούσα εργασία έγινε μία προσπάθεια ανάπτυξης της οικονομετρίας σαν εργαλείο για την εξαγωγή συμπερασμάτων και αποφάσεων από τα δικαστήρια. Αφορμή αποτέλεσαν οι υποθέσεις αθέμιτου ανταγωνισμού που πρόσφατα έχουν συμβεί στην χώρα μας, όπου με τη χρήση των ποσοτικών μεθόδων αποδείχτηκαν οι εναρμονισμένες πολιτικές. Περιγράφηκε η αναπτυσσόμενη ανάγκη χρήσης ποσοτικών μεθόδων στο δικαστήριο. Γίνεται αναφορά στο νομικό προηγούμενο Daubert το αποίο περιγράφει ρητά την αποδεκτικότητα μαρτυριών ειδικών επιστημόνων σε δικαστικές διαμάχες (στο νομικό σύστημα της Αμερικής). Αναπτύσσονται τα κριτήρια για να είναι μία οικονομετρική μελέτη αποδεκτή από το δικαστήριο σαν πειστήριο. Βασικές αναφορές στην οικονομετρία. Υποθέσεις που έχουν χρησιμοποιήσει οικονομετρία. Προβλήματα από την χρήση των ποσοτικών μεθόδων στο Νομικό σύστημα. Τέλος μελέτες περιπτώσεων όπου η οικονομετρική ανάλυση είχε τον πρώτο λόγο σαν αποδεικτικό στοιχεία στο δικαστήριο. / In this particular assignment an effort has been made to develop econometrics as a weapon to reach conclusions and decisions of courts. The reason for all this have been the antitrust cases which have recently occurred in our country, where policies agreed among companies have been proved by using quantitive methods. In the court the increasing need to use quantitive methods has been described. A reference has been made concerning the Daubert standard which explicitly describes the acceptance of the testimonies of scientists in litigation (in the legal system of America). What is thoroughly developed are the criteria so that it will be an econometric study which will be accepted by court as evidence. Basic references to econometrics. Cases which have used econometrics. Problems which may arise by the use of quantitive methods in the legal system. Finally, studies of cases where econometrics analysis was the most import evidence in court.

No description available.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.D.)-University of Natal, Durban, 1981.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban, 1991.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.