Suchergebnisse

Manual for informational purposes to reflect the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission's answers to the most commonly requested information. Includes information on illicit alcohol sales, legal vs. illegal alcohol consumption, understanding DUI/DWI laws, and a knowledge test.

The problem-solving approach is not explicitly present in the Polish justice system. Various provisions required to implement it are dispersed throughout the system of law, but they are heavily underused and do not form a comprehensive system. To date, there have been virtually no efforts to concentrate resources, develop cross-sectoral partnerships and provide solutions tailored to special groups of court users; features that are hallmarks of problem-solving justice in other jurisdictions. Low and decreasing levels of crime remove pressure from legislators to seek innovative solutions. Somewhat paradoxically, given the decline of crime, the current government has been pursuing a rather restrictive sentencing policy. Nevertheless, recent reforms – of the Criminal Code in 2015, and a new 2016 law on alternative dispute resolution – promise to finally boost mediation and other problem-solving measures.

Democracy is often equated with majority rule. But closer analysis reveals that, in theory and by constitutional design, our criminal justice system should be supermajoritarian, not majoritarian. The Constitution guarantees that criminal punishment may be imposed only when backed by the supermajoritarian-historically, unanimous-approval of a jury drawn from the community. And criminal law theorists' expressive and retributive justifications for criminal punishment implicitly rely on the existence of broad community consensus in favor of imposing it. Despite these constitutional and theoretical ideals, the criminal justice system today is majoritarian at best. Both harsh and contested, it has lost the structural mechanisms that could ensure supermajoritarian support. By incorporating new supermajoritarian checks and reinvigorating old ones, we could make criminal punishment consonant with first principles and more responsive to community intuitions of justice.

From secret stingray devices that can pinpoint a suspect's location, to advanced forensic DNA-analysis tools, to recidivism risk statistic software—the use of privately developed criminal justice technologies is growing. So too is a concomitant pattern of trade secret assertion surrounding these technologies. This Article charts the role of private law secrecy in shielding criminal justice activities, demonstrating that such secrecy is pervasive, problematic, and ultimately unnecessary for the production of well-designed criminal justice tools. This Article makes three contributions to the existing literature. First, the Article establishes that trade secrecy now permeates American criminal justice, shielding privately developed criminal justice technologies from vigorous cross-examination and review. Second, the Article argues that private law secrecy surrounding the inner workings—or even the existence—of these criminal justice technologies imposes potentially unconstitutional harms on individual defendants and significant practical harms on both the criminal justice system and the development of well- designed criminal justice technology. Third, the Article brings the extensive literature on innovation policy to bear on the production of privately developed criminal justice technologies, demonstrating that trade secrecy is not essential to either the existence or operation of those technologies. The Article proposes alternative innovation policies that the government, as both a funder of research and the primary purchaser of criminal justice technologies, is uniquely well-positioned to implement.

The underrepresentation of Asian states as parties to the Rome Statute has elicited concerns that the region is significantly falling behind in developing and enforcing international criminal justice. This view accords significance to ratification of the Rome Statute as the primary measure of a country's willingness to give effect to the norms protected by international criminal law. However, the development of international criminal justice mechanisms and substantive law has not entirely escaped Southeast Asia, which has seen the adoption of a spectrum of approaches to international criminal justice, including the establishment of international(ised) criminal institutions, Rome Statute ratifications, and the adoption of domestic legislation addressing international crimes – as well as other transitional justice procedures.This thesis identifies the laws and institutions for prosecuting international crimes in Southeast Asia and considers the arguments presented by different actors to influence states' approaches toward international criminal justice. It suggests that a linear account of these developments as deriving from externally driven norm diffusion is incomplete. Instead, drawing particularly on the experiences of Cambodia, the Philippines and Indonesia, this thesis argues that states, international organisations and non-state actors in Southeast Asia have engaged in a process of localisation leading to the adaptation of the international criminal justice norm. The development of mechanisms for prosecuting international crimes across Southeast Asia challenges assumptions about the temporal progression of norm diffusion, spatial designations between 'local' and 'international' ideas and actors, and the direction in which ideas and influences evolve across the world.This thesis makes significant and original contributions to knowledge by applying a 'localisation' framework to analyse debates about international criminal justice, including with reference to three case studies, and by extending and updating earlier surveys of international criminal laws in Southeast Asian states.

In the framework of the constitutional justice reform of year 2016, "Constitutional reform in Albania of year 2016 determined fundamental amendments by improving justice system." (Balla, 2017, p. 368), there are undertaken to be improved important justice laws. Therefore, fundamental amendments are made on the Criminal Proceedings Code (CPC) on year 2017. These amendments consisted in general and specially to enable the implementation of government policy, for the establishment of new institutions and the strengthening of existing ones, in the fight against corruption and the consolidation of the justice system. At the same time, the amendments aim to address the most obvious issues and problems encountered in practice. Correspondingly, the constitutional amendments and the adoption of other laws, necessary to implement them, brought the need to unify and harmonize these amendments in the CPC. In particular, the new regulations aim to determine the prosecutor's independence in the criminal proceedings, the establishment of the Special Prosecution Office, the jurisdiction of the High Court and the change in the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Corruption and Organized Crime. Through this paper it is addressed the treatment of new standards and institutes that are regulated in the CPC. How do they stand compared to European standards such as the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and international law, as well as the jurisprudence of International Criminal Court (ICC). The paper aims to address issues related to the rights of defendants, the legal position of the victims and especially the treatment of the most favorable legal status of protected witnesses and collaborators of justice.

Copyright is a high reality of various values, including economic value, this is because copyright that is born of copyright, taste, and intention is able to color the development of human life through objects born from the copyright process. However, in its development various copyrights were not considered in this country. The rise of piracy on song copyrights for example, is only able to benefit the perpetrators of piracy of song copyright economically. The research method used is a juridical legal research method of analysis with the object of research studies aimed at the laws and regulations relating to copyright and principles - applicable legal principles. Substantially, the material changes in Law No. 28 of 2014 is related to the change of type of criminal offense from ordinary offense to complaint offense and in the meantime there are not many creators who can seek justice about it. The results of the research are increasingly unfair with the existence of Clause 112 to Clause 119 of Law Number 28 of 2014 changing copyright offenses to complaint offenses that increasingly marginalize the rights of the creators of copyrighted works in this country. Therefore it is necessary to have a joint discussion related to the political development of criminal law related to copyright offenses. Hak Cipta adalah suatu realitas yang tinggi akan berbagai nilai, termasuk didalamnya nilai ekonomis, hal ini dikarenakan hak cipta yang lahir dari cipta, rasa, dan karsa mampu mewarnai perkembangan kehidupan umat manusia melalui benda yang lahir dari proses cipta tersebut. Namun dalam perkembangannya berbagai hak cipta tidaklah diperhatikan di negara ini. Maraknya pembajakan akan hak cipta lagu misalnya, hanya mampu menguntungkan bagi oknum pelaku pembajakan hak cipta lagu tersebut secara ekonomis, Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum yuridis analisis dengan objek kajian penelitian yang ditujukan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan hak cipta dan prinsip-prinsip hukum yang berlaku. Secara substansial, materi perubahan dalam UU No. 28 Tahun 2014 adalah yang berkaitan dengan perubahan jenis tindak pidana dari delik biasa menjadi delik aduan serta sementara itu pihak pencipta tidak banyak yang dapat mengupayakan keadilan akan hal itu. Hasil dari penelitian semakin bertambah tidak adil dengan adanya Pasal 112 hingga Pasal 119 Undang-Undang Nomer 28 Tahun 2014 merubah delik hak cipta menjadi delik aduan yang semakin memarjinalkan hak dari pencipta suatu karya cipta di negara ini. Oleh sebab itu perlu adanya pembahasan bersama terkait pembangunan politik hukum pidana terkai delik hak cipta.

The South Carolina Budget and Control Board, Division of General Services published the findings of an audit of the procurement policies and procedures of the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy.

From 1997 to 2001, the Chilean government enacted laws to transform its criminal justice system from one using a closed and secretive inquisitorial-type process to one employing a more open and transparent adversarial process. These criminal procedure reforms significantly changed the roles of lower court judges, prosecutors and public defenders and provided defendants and victims with broader individual rights. Despite its commitment to criminal law reforms, during the implementation period of these reforms, the government remained lackluster in its commitment to a more open and transparent justice system when it related to more politicized cases. During the criminal law reform implementation process, the government was hesitant to prosecute high-level Pinochet-era officials while adamant about prosecuting individuals who criticized the judiciary. Not until the government had significantly improved the lower level criminal procedures was there a change in the way that the government dealt with the prosecution of high-level officials under the Pinochet regime and with individuals criticizing the judiciary itself. This paper explores the connection between the government's commitment to lower level criminal law reforms and its policy switch in dealing with more politicized cases.

In this article, the author discusses his experiences traveling to Nicaragua in May 1985, as a part of a group of American lawyers and law professors invited by the Nicaraguan Association of Democratic Justice to consult on the judicial process, as well as a revolutionary struggle within the Nicaraguan institutions responsible for criminal justice. This article addresses current criminal procedure, special tribunals, and popular anti-Somocista tribunals. It also discusses a pilot project geared to improve criminal justice issues in Nicaragua.

This issue brief explains the definition of a disabled person and how they are considered in American Politics. It also examines the interactions of disabled persons and the criminal justice system.

Twenty years ago, in McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court rejected a capital defendant's claim that statistical evidence of racial discrimination in the administration of Georgia's death penalty system constituted a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yet, even as McCleskey effectively bars constitutional challenges to racial disparities in the criminal justice system where invidious bias is difficult to establish, the Court invites advocates to pursue legislation as a remedy to racial disparities. Indeed, the McCleskey Court offers as a rationale for its ruling the judiciary's institutional incompetence to remedy these disparities, holding that "McCleskey's arguments are best presented to the legislative bodies" and that "it is not the responsibility – or indeed even the right – of this Court to determine the appropriate punishment for particular crimes." Putting aside the question of whether the Court's concerns about institutional competence are sincere, the Court has raised similar concerns in other constitutional cases involving racial disparate impact claims. For instance, in Washington v. Davis – the Court's first clear holding that violations of the Fourteenth Amendment require proof of intentional discrimination – the Court held that rules affecting disparate impact "should await legislative prescription." Similarly, in Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, the Court established a standard for proving intentional discrimination approaching malice, and again directed disparate impact claims to legislatures, stating that "[t]he calculus of effects, the manner in which a particular law reverberates in a society is a legislative and not a judicial responsibility." Thus, the Court has repeatedly argued that the legislature is the appropriate venue for addressing disparate impact claims. The problem, of course, is that advocates turn to courts precisely because legislatures are seen as unresponsive. The legislature may be unwilling to critically examine the death penalty or other criminal justice issues because of a weak constituency militating in favor of reform and political pressures to expand rather than curtail criminal justice penalties. Even when public sentiment may drift away from favoring harsh punishments – as, for instance, in recent polls that show declining support for incarceration for non-violent drug offenders – legislatures may be slow to act because the constituency favoring reform is diffuse, while the constituency favoring tougher penal laws is well-organized and vocal. A central theory justifying judicial review is that legislatures are often unresponsive to issues affecting racial minorities, and, by some accounts, the United States' relatively harsh criminal justice policies (as compared to other Western democracies) are in part a result of the confluence of race with criminal justice. David Garland, for instance, casts punitive responses as resulting from the "criminology of the other," the meting of harsh punishments to perceived social outcasts – at this time in history largely poor blacks – who "lack political power and are widely regarded as dangerous and undeserving."

It is widely recognized that the American criminal system is in a state of crisis, but views about what has gone wrong and how it could be set right can seem chaotically divergent. This Essay argues that, within the welter of diverse views, one foundational, enormously important, and yet largely unrecognized line of disagreement can be seen. On one side are those who think the root of the present crisis is the outsized influence of a vengeful, poorly informed, or otherwise wrongheaded American public and the primary solution is to place control over the criminal system in the hands of officials and experts. On the other side are those who think the root of the crisis is a set of bureaucratic attitudes, structures, and incentives divorced from the American public's concerns and sense of justice and the primary solution is to make criminal justice more community focused and responsive to lay influences. The former view reflects a norm of bureaucratic professionalization; the latter view reflects a norm of democratization. This Essay defines the two camps, specifies the concepts of bureaucracy and democracy underlying each one, and identifies some of the unifying ideas on the democratization side. This Essay thus attempts to bring conceptual order to the present cacophony of voices on criminal justice reform by specifying the conflict of visions at their center. As the opening piece of this Symposium Issue of the Northwestern University Law Review—a symposium not just about democratizing criminal justice but in defense of democratizing criminal justice—this Essay also paves the way for what will follow: a full-throated defense of the democratic criminal justice vision.

This article explores design justice as a framework for deeper inclusion in municipal criminal court reform. Section I provides a brief summary of a typical litigant's path through modern municipal courts. Then, section I explores the historic role of municipal courts, the insider/outsider dichotomy of municipal criminal regulation, and the limitations of past reform efforts. Section II shifts into an overview of participatory design and discusses the new emergence of design justice. Within the discussion of design justice, the article focuses on three precepts of design justice: excavating the history and impact of the courts, creating tools for participation, and finding clear and shared understandings of spatial experiences. The final section applies a design justice framework to municipal criminal regulation to create fundamental change. By implementing design justice principles, marginalized communities can strike down oppressive municipal criminal regulation that maintains the social hierarchy, and rally supporters from within and outside of the system to design an inclusive plan for change.

The world is in crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Corona Virus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) is a disease that was first discovered in the city of Wuhan, China. The transmission of Covid-19 in the People's Republic of China (PRC) occurred in 2019 and caused the death of Chinese citizens. By early 2020, the spread had spread to every country, including Indonesia. The wide spread of Covid-19 throughout Indonesia has resulted in the government declaring a health emergency and implementing a lockdown policy by limiting activities that trigger the massive spread of the Covid-19 virus. Activities that were initially carried out offline must be carried out online, and one of these activities is court proceedings. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, every activity, including the judiciary, is carried out online. This study aims to examine the problems that occur as a result of the implementation of online criminal justice in criminal procedural law. This research is descriptive research with a literature study method. The results of the study show that the implementation of online trials creates problems that are considered inconsistent with several principles and contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code, some of which are the validity of evidence in court, then there is an examination of the defendant in court until the last one is the personnel and equipment. which is not supported. Another problem is the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 4 of 2020 concerning the Administration and Trial of Criminal Cases in Courts Electronically which is contrary to the principles of Courts Open to the Public and Quick Trials.