Text

E-book Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? : A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules

---

Penilaian

---

Criminal justice systems are barometers of social development. This claim, putforward by German criminal law scholars,1alludes to the fact that inherent in thecriminal justice process are conflicting interests between the need to ensure comprehensive fact-finding on the one hand, and the wish to safeguard individual rights,especially those of defendants, on the other hand. In all criminal justice systems,there exists a strong public interest in determining the truth due to the assertion thata determination of innocence or guilt is based upon“true”facts. This pursuit of“thetruth”has led to procedural rules that expose both suspects and witnesses tocoercive measures that often interfere with individual rights.Modern day criminal justice systems are designed to not only ensure compre-hensive fact-finding, but also protect the human rights of defendants, victims, andwitnesses. Individual rights applicable to criminal proceedings include the right tohave one’s dignity respected, protection from physical force and torture, the rightagainst self-incrimination, and the right to privacy of person and property. Becausethese rights run counter to authorities’factfinding, they are regularly at risk ofbeing disregarded. As such, preventing human rights violations remains a challengewithin criminal procedure law worldwide and the means to do so are limited.A promising method of reducing human rights violations is the exclusion of ille-gally obtained evidence from trial. The rationale behind these so-called exclu-sionary rules is the expectation that law enforcement officers will refrain fromengaging in unlawful evidence-gathering techniques if they are aware that thephysical or testimonial evidence produced will be inadmissible at trial. Based on the hypothesis that excluding unlawfully obtained evidence is aneffective tool for safeguarding human rights in criminal proceedings, the corequestion of this comparative project is twofold: How can criminal procedure lawensure respect for human rights and what role does the exclusion of illegallyobtained evidence actually play in this regard? In order to answer this question in aglobal context, we investigated three European jurisdictions (Switzerland,Germany, England), three Asian jurisdictions (People’s Republic of China [PRC],Taiwan/Republic of China [ROC], Singapore), and the United States. The aim ofthe study was not tofind a single universally applicable model of human rightsprotection, but to determine features that are conducive to enhancing respect forindividual rights in different criminal justice systems.

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

320 CHE d

Penerbit

Switzerland : Springer Nature., 2019

Deskripsi Fisik

387 hlm

Bahasa

English

ISBN/ISSN

9783030125202

Klasifikasi

320

Tipe Isi

text

Tipe Media

computer

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

Political dan Government Science

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

-

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar