‘Post-decision Decision-making’

C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"‘Post-decision Decision-making’","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's policy on post-decision decision-making, focusing on what happens in cases when the Commission has decided there are no grounds for referral but where the applicant comes back with further information or a new application to try to persuade the Commission that its decision was wrong. The chapter first describes the legitimacy of the Commission's post-decision decision-making before discussing its instrumental decision-making based on referrals, judicial review, and procedural justice. It then shows how the Commission responds to ‘further submissions’ or ‘reapplications’, and how they provide applicants with an opportunity to have their cases reconsidered. It also analyses the empirical and theoretical drivers that underpin the Commission's decision field, the new ‘frames’ that make it possible to redefine cases in further submissions and reapplications, and how developments in the surround affects the Commission's decision frame.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reasons to Doubt","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's policy on post-decision decision-making, focusing on what happens in cases when the Commission has decided there are no grounds for referral but where the applicant comes back with further information or a new application to try to persuade the Commission that its decision was wrong. The chapter first describes the legitimacy of the Commission's post-decision decision-making before discussing its instrumental decision-making based on referrals, judicial review, and procedural justice. It then shows how the Commission responds to ‘further submissions’ or ‘reapplications’, and how they provide applicants with an opportunity to have their cases reconsidered. It also analyses the empirical and theoretical drivers that underpin the Commission's decision field, the new ‘frames’ that make it possible to redefine cases in further submissions and reapplications, and how developments in the surround affects the Commission's decision frame.
“政策例会后的决策”
本章审查刑事案件审查委员会关于决定后决策的政策,重点是在委员会决定没有移交理由,但申请人带着进一步的资料或新的申请回来试图说服委员会其决定是错误的情况下会发生什么。本章首先描述了委员会决策后决策的合法性,然后讨论了其基于转介、司法审查和程序正义的工具性决策。然后说明委员会如何回应“进一步提交”或“重新申请”,以及他们如何为申请人提供重新考虑其案件的机会。它还分析了支持委员会决策领域的经验和理论驱动因素,使在进一步提交和重新申请中重新定义案件成为可能的新“框架”,以及周围的发展如何影响委员会的决策框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信