A Commission under Scrutiny

C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"A Commission under Scrutiny","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the nature of criticisms about the Criminal Cases Review Commission, especially with regards to its application of the ‘real possibility test’ in investigating and referring potential wrongful conviction cases. It begins with a discussion of the Commission's structural failings as perceived by critics external to the institution, with particular emphasis on the argument that focusing on safety and the real possibility test prevents the Commission from referring cases to the Court of Appeal in the interests of ‘justice’, or ‘innocence’. Critics also claim that the Commission does not strike a proper balance between thoroughness and efficiency in the allocation of its finite resources; that it is inconsistent in its response; and that it sometimes does not communicate adequately with applicants and their legal representatives. The chapter concludes with an overview of the book's key research goals as well as the methods employed to realise them.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"30 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/9780198794578.003.0002","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 nature of criticisms about the Criminal Cases Review Commission, especially with regards to its application of the ‘real possibility test’ in investigating and referring potential wrongful conviction cases. It begins with a discussion of the Commission's structural failings as perceived by critics external to the institution, with particular emphasis on the argument that focusing on safety and the real possibility test prevents the Commission from referring cases to the Court of Appeal in the interests of ‘justice’, or ‘innocence’. Critics also claim that the Commission does not strike a proper balance between thoroughness and efficiency in the allocation of its finite resources; that it is inconsistent in its response; and that it sometimes does not communicate adequately with applicants and their legal representatives. The chapter concludes with an overview of the book's key research goals as well as the methods employed to realise them.
受审查的委员会
本章审查了对刑事案件审查委员会的批评的性质,特别是关于其在调查和移交潜在的错误定罪案件时应用“真实可能性测试”。它首先讨论了委员会的结构性缺陷,这是该机构外部批评者所认为的,特别强调了这样一种观点,即关注安全和真正的可能性测试会阻止委员会为了“正义”或“清白”的利益将案件提交上诉法院。批评人士还声称,委员会在分配其有限的资源时没有在彻底和效率之间取得适当的平衡;它的反应前后不一致;它有时没有与申请人及其法律代表充分沟通。本章总结了本书的主要研究目标,以及采用的方法来实现他们的概述。
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