Suchergebnisse

SummaryThis study examined the relationship between the fear of deportation and perceptions of law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and the willingness to report crimes among Latinos in the US. Understanding the relationship between increased immigration enforcement and fear of deportation may promote public safety by improving the relationship between the police and Latino communities.FindingsMultivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses of the data found that participants who had a greater fear of deportation reported: (1) less confidence that police would not use excessive force (p < .01); (2) less confidence that police would treat Latinos fairly (p < .05); (3) a lower likelihood of reporting crimes (p < .05); and (4) less confidence that the courts would treat Latinos fairly (p < .01).ApplicationsSocial work practitioners can help address this issue and improve the relationship between law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and the Latino community by: delivering cultural competence training for police and criminal justice personnel; educating Latinos about how to protect their rights when interacting with police and the criminal justice system; and by advocating for immigration reform that can help improve public safety and reduce fear in Latino communities.

The national banking legal system uses two operational principles, namely conventional and sharia. Sharia banking was born and based on the Islamic legal system. Islamic banks in Indonesia have only been operating for about 25 years. This is still relatively new compared to conventional banks which have been used for more than a century. Various regulations were made to support the development of Islamic banks. This paper will examine the scope of the national banking legal system and the implementation of sharia principles in the material law of the national banking legal system. From the results of the study it was concluded that: (1) The legal system of Islamic banking in Indonesia consists of three components of the legal system, namely legal substance (material law and formal law), structure, in the form of institutions that support Islamic banking, and culture, both corporate culture , as well as the culture of society. This is in accordance with the elements of the legal system put forward by L. Friedman. (2) The implementation of sharia principles in material law within the scope of the national banking legal system has been embodied in laws and regulations in the banking sector which contain sharia principles. Hierarchically starting from the constitution, namely the 1945 Constitution, Government Regulations, Financial Services Authority Regulations, National Economic Law Compilation and DSN-MUI Fatwas. However, in a number of regulatory matters (material law) Islamic banking is still the same as conventional banks.

The subject of the study is the criminal policy in the context of contradictions in the functioning of the courts.The purpose of the study is to investigate, which contradictions of criminal policy are generated by a multi-level system of courts, and which mechanisms for overcoming them in order to optimize criminal policy could be found out.The methodology. In modern conditions of diversification of methodological approaches to organizing and conducting political-legal research, it is important not to discard, but to rethink and rediscover the epistemological possibilities of the methods of classical science, especially the method of dialectical analysis.The main results and scope of the study. The use of the category "dialectical contradiction" for the purpose of studying the problems of the functioning of the courts in terms of the interpretation and application of criminal law provisions opens up new possibilities in the study of criminal and judicial policy, as well as determining the prospects for its development. In the study, the law enforcement contradictions of criminal policy refer to the relations between courts of various types and levels that develop in the course of their functioning and reflect the opposite approaches of law enforcement bodies to the interpretation and application of criminal legislation. Considering the level and type of legal proceedings, these contradictions can be summarized in the following groups: (a) between national and international courts; (b) between superior courts of the national legal system; (c) between the courts of various instances of the system of courts of general jurisdiction.The contradictions between national and international courts, emerging in the field of protection of human rights and freedoms, are an objective source of development of judicial practice and policy. The resolution of these contradictions is based on the consensus of various courts and compromise. If the position of the European Court of Human Rights does not contradict the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state adjusts its legal practice in the direction set by the authoritative international instance by means of: (a) direct application of national legislation with due regard for the ECHR's legal positions; (b) the application of national legislation in its constitutional interpretation by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which does not differ from the decisions and positions of the ECHR; (c) amending national legal acts in pursuance of ECHR judgments. In exceptional cases, when the position of the European Court touches upon issues of the country's constitutional identity, the contradiction between the international and national legal order is resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the basis of the priority of constitutional norms.At the level of the superior national courts the contradictions are represented by the differing positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the assessment and interpretation of criminal law provisions. Such contradictions can be thought of as latent until they are not revealed in constitutional proceedings. The identification and resolution of these contradictions is the most important direction of legal policy in the country; it reflects the consistent solution of the aim of constitutionalization of the criminal law.At the level of the system of courts of general jurisdiction, the concept of "contradiction" can only be applied to those differing approaches of the courts to solving criminal cases that do not go beyond the rule of law. Contradictions arise only when, having correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, the courts disagree in the choice of the legal provision to be applied, although any such choice can be explained and motivated. These contradictions may or may not be related to the quality of criminal legislation. Therefore, the mechanism for their resolution includes not only law revision. It is important to use the capabilities of the judicial system itself to develop a consensual understanding of the textual content of the criminal law and the rules for its application.Conclusions. Overcoming the contradictions of the judicial criminal policy is possible only in the process of communication and dialogue between the courts of different levels on the basis of differentiation of jurisdiction, respect for authority and independence. ; Рассматриваются противоречия судебного уровня реализации уголовной политики, которые складываются в сфере функционирования международных и национальных судов различных уровней при толковании, оценке и применении правовых норм. Предлагается классификация этих противоречий на основе уровня, вида судопроизводства и источника возникновения, которая помогает лучше понять механизм функционирования судебной системы, роль судов в обеспечении верховенства права. Принимая во внимание диалектическую природу противоречий, доказывается, что механизм их преодоления должен включать в себя как организационные решения в части разграничения компетенции судов, так и идейно-нормативные решения, обеспечивающие компромисс судебных позиций ради достижения общей цели соблюдения прав человека при разрешении уголовно-правового конфликта.

Historical Review of Criminal Investigation Roots of Investigation Investigations in America The Role of Patrol Officers The Modern Investigator Current Investigative Practices The Management of Criminal Investigations The Rand Study Case Screening Compstat Investigative Function Crime Analysis Specialized Units Relationship with the News Media Legal Issues Arrest Search and Seizure Rules of Evidence Lineups and Identification Sources of Information Internet People as Sources State and Local Sources Federal Agencies and Commissions Interviewing and Interrogation Listening Interviewing Interrog

and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend toward more liberal admission of hearsay in civil cases. But while federal courts criminal cases, the rules of criminal discovery show no sign of adapting to that reality. As a result, in comparison to other litigants, federal criminal defendants now face a litigation environment that features both minimum discovery and maximum admissible hearsay. Part II offers some proposals to address that imbalance by expanding a defendant's right to learn in advance what hearsay he must face, and his right to gather "ammunition" to contest that hearsay. Where appropriate, I have included proposals that would require the amendment of existing rules. But recognizing the practical difficulties facing any rule-making initiative, my principal focus is to suggest more effective means of applying Rule 16, the Jencks Act, and the Brady doctrine-the major discovery tools presently available to criminal defendants-to the task of contesting prosecution hearsay. This Article is not a critique of developments in the law of evidence, nor of the Court's application of the Confrontation Clause to hearsay. It is not an argument that more, or less, hearsay should be admitted in criminal cases. Instead, it takes as a starting point the undeniable reality that, for good or ill, today's federal criminal trials include a wider variety of admissible hearsay than ever before. My aim is to show how the process of criminal discovery can and should adapt to that reality to correct the hearsay-discovery balance when the government relies on hearsay.

Law in a transnational context loses the features with which it has been configured since modernity. Classic distinctions between national and international, public and private, substantive and procedural, legal and political, social and legal lose their rigidity in a context of norms, orders, institutions and agents that interact and overlap in diverse and changing ways. A legal theory capable of explaining and evaluating this overflowing egal reality is lacking. A theoretical reflection on international law is not enough. Transnationalism appeals to a plurality of legal actors and spaces that interact to create, interpret and enforce rules which they mutually identify with. Transnationalism does not only refer to the global or the supranational, but to the interdependence of both with the local and transit spaces. And this translates into a change of focus or perspective that is required of each legal agent: management of the interrelation between diverse orders aimed to create spaces for approach, contestation and innovation is a normative requirement and it must be weighed against other legal values. Concepts to which legal theory must focus its attention change their meaning. The work refers to four of those concepts that I consider essential: social group or community, relations between orders and interlegality, coercion and normative diversity. The last part of the paper addresses the way in which these necessary changes have a place in our theories elaborated from the perspective of the great traditions of legal philosophy. What legal positivism, socio-legal theory and legal realism have in common might be an appropriate approach to the review of our discipline.

The article analyzes the category of "legal force" from the standpoint of determining its nature and content features. The main attention is paid to the factors influencing the origin of legal force and the sequence of its formation. The interdependent relationship is justified of the categories "legal force" and "source of law" is argued, the expression of legal force is considered on the example of formal sources of law. The author draws attention to the international nature of the category of "legal force" and expresses his views on the applicability of the stare decisis doctrine to substantiate the legal force of formal sources of law.