Suchergebnisse

The Kingdom of Swaziland is one of the few countries in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), Africa and the world where traditional institutions play a very important part in the overall governance of the country. The Kingdom, which in 1998 celebrated thirty years of political independence, has what has been described as a "modified traditional monarch". The significance of traditional institutions in general and the monarch in particular, manifests itself not only in the general administration of the country but in the administration of criminal justice as well. This contribution describes the crises and confusion that arose in the administration of criminal justice in Swaziland in the 1990s in general and, in particular, the part played by the Director of Public prosecutions – DPP, who was assumed to have been connected to, and in league with, traditional bodies and officials. An analysis is made of how adherence to traditional norms and the influence of traditional institutions contributed to and became part of the crises. A conclusion is drawn that the DPP, who is an officer of the court, is in law expected to exercise his professional powers independently. When that ceases to be the case, this office can become a cause of injustice not only to individuals but to society as a whole.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of Administration of Justice as a research field and set out an agenda for future studies that could promote the production of scientific knowledge in this area. Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores the idiosyncratic features, dimensions of analysis upon the Administration of Justice, states a research agenda and discusses the main challenges on this theme. This paper conceptualizes Administration of Justice as a research field and discusses related phenomena from institutional and economic perspectives on innovation, performance, governance and legitimacy. Findings – As a research field, Administration of Justice is defined as a set of theoretical concepts, research methods and techniques, aiming to investigate the management processes associated with the use and articulation of resources, knowledge and institutions, at different levels of the justice system, and their influence on the provision of justice in a given social context. As social phenomena, four levels of analysis are proper to investigate the justice system: societal, inter-organizational, organizational and operational. Innovation, performance, governance and legitimacy are central themes of the Administration of Justice and present various gaps and research opportunities. Research limitations/implications – The main implications is the proposal of an agenda for future studies on the Administration of Justice field, which is an important step in raising awareness of the issue. Originality/value – Administration of Justice encompasses a growing interest among academics, justice practitioners and public managers regarding managerial and political practices carried out in the justice system. Although relevant, this subject has been scarcely studied by the management community. This paper invites community to adopt an organizational and institutional perspective to Administration of Justice, setting an agenda for future research.

This article focuses on vast American violations of human rights in the administration of criminal justice. It traces the development of these rights in the context of the two most pernicious human rights violations plaguing the United States: the death penalty and racism in the enforcement of criminal laws. The author calls attention to the politicization of the American justice system and its devastatingly negative impact on America's preservation of human rights.

"29 July 1944." ; Originally classified confidential. ; Cover-title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"List of statutes" : p. 413-417. ; "Conducted under the auspiced of the Council for research in the social sciences of Columbia university in the city of New York. The funds . were furnished by the Legislative drafting bureau of the same institute." - Pref. ; Issued also as thesis (Ph.D.) Columbia University. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Appears also in the Pamphleteer, v. 16, no. 31, 1820, under title: On the administration of the criminal code in England, and the spirit of the English government. ; Mode of access: Internet.

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.

The importance of the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 for the Nigerian Federation and the subsequent state variants have an impact on the need for speedy dispensation of justice. This enactment enjoins all institutional actors that make up the criminal justice system in Nigeria to accelerate the processes leading to the quick dispensation of justice for the defendant, the victim and the society. The Nigeria policing philosophy characterised by centralised command and control governance system appears to be at variance with this aim as provided by the Act. It is particularly so in component states where variants of the ACJA have not been enacted. Quick dispensation of justice may be painful to achieve when the police cannot be controlled by any other body in the Federation other than the central command. This paper provides that if there is no realignment or a total recalibration of the philosophies between the ACJA and the Nigeria Police, the aims of ACJA may become far from reality. The combination of jurisdictional limitation of crime and the peculiar federating structure of the country which imposes a pseudo-independent criminal justice system on each state has a crucial impact on the aims of ACJA.

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.

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.

Recourse to forensic capabilities is on an upward trajectory; yet, concurrently, international scandals have brought the fallibility of forensic science into sharp focus. As such, this thesis explores forensic science's role in Irish criminal process in the light of expectations thereof. Against a backdrop of academic literature and research from other jurisdictions, Irish legislation, caselaw and policy documentation are examined with a view to delineating perceptions and applications of forensic science at key junctures, from crime scene to court. Thereafter, having regard to qualitative data specifically generated for this inquiry, this thesis endeavours to afford the reader hitherto unseen insights into how forensic science and its role is perceived by those working at the coalface of Irish criminal process, providing a valuable window into aspects of the criminal justice continuum, such as investigative decision-making, inter-agency communications, prosecutorial and defence stratagems. Ultimately, it is hoped that these "insider" perspectives, in conjunction with "official" commentary, will enable the identification of potential disconnect between expectations and the actuality of forensic science in Ireland.

Report of the Texas State Auditor's Office related to deficiencies in the design and implementation of controls over the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's (TDCJ) purchasing and contracting functions, which have prevented TDCJ from ensuring that it spends funds according to state law or on the most effective, efficient services.

Report of the Texas State Auditor's Office related to the Department of Criminal Justice's Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD), and the accuracy and completeness of the information it uses to allocate funds for adult probation services and the monitoring of its agreements with the community supervision and correction departments (CSCDs) that provide these services.

South Africa lost two Chief Justices in late 2012 and mid-2013. Arthur Chaskalson, who served as President of the Constitutional Court from 1994 to 2001 and Chief Justice from 2001 to 2005, passed away on 1 December 2012. Among many achievements and accolades, he was a member of the defence team in the Rivonia Trial of 1963 and was one of the founders of the Legal Resources Centre in 1979. (G Budlender 'In Memoriam: The late former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson' (2013) 26 part 1 April Advocate 8-10). Pius Nkonzo Langa succeeded Athur Chaskalson as Chief Justice in 2005, having served as Deputy Chief Justice from 2001. He retired in October 2009 and passed away on 24 July 2013. Justice Langa was a founding member of the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (NADEL). He was among the first judges appointed to the newly created Constitutional Court and served with great distinction. (Moseneke 'Public power on behalf of the people' (2013) 26 part 3 December Advocate 27-8).