Item 1020-A, 1020-B (MF). ; "Serial no. 125." ; Shipping list no.: 91-188-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.
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.
"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.
Shipping list no.: 2007-0389-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; At head of title: 109th Congress, 1st session. ; 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.
It is documented that imprisonment rates of women have been increasing rapidly, both worldwide and in Australia, over the past decade. Discrimination against women may help to account for their increased numbers in the criminal justice system, but is also a concern in its own right. Looking at the context of New South Wales, we explore how women are subject to direct and indirect discrimination based on sex, race and disability in the police, court and prison systems. Changes in legislation and practices within the system over the past two decades have impacted negatively upon particular groups of people, especially upon poor and racialised women and women with mental or cognitive health concerns. Further to this, practices such as strip searching have a pernicious effect on women in custody. These developments, along with other practices imposed upon women in the criminal justice system, are argued to constitute systemic discrimination.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Strengthening the rule of law is widely regarded among traditional donors, multilateral institutions, and a growing number of middle income and fragile states as a necessary precondition for sustainable peace, poverty alleviation, and development. Crime and violence deter investment and lower employment, undermine social institutions, and divert resources through direct and indirect costs, all of which hinder development. It is likely to disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations by limiting access to basic services. The formal criminal justice system is seen in many environments as failing to deliver justice. Most states experiencing fragility do not have the capacity to effectively prevent crime, enforce laws, or peacefully resolve disputes across the whole of their territories. There is another powerful deterrent for communities to seek redress through state criminal justice institutions: they are frequently a primary instrument for the government and elites to maintain power and control through the perpetration of injustice. The informal system, however, is alone insufficient to handle the pressing justice requirements of fragile states, not least for preventing and responding to inter-communal conflict, to serious organized and cross-border crime, and to public corruption and other 'white collar' crime.
