排除不当或违宪证据的示范规则

M. Madden
{"title":"排除不当或违宪证据的示范规则","authors":"M. Madden","doi":"10.15779/Z38PK3M","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers several different theoretical bases for exclusionary rules within domestic criminal justice systems, and many associated countervailing considerations against exclusion, in order to identify a principled basis upon which a model exclusionary rule could be built. The article then describes, from a broad comparative perspective, various application doctrines that form part of different existing exclusionary rules, and assesses how effectively each of these doctrines can be justified in terms of one or more of the accepted bases for exclusion. Finally, building on the theoretical and comparative study within the first two parts, the article concludes by proposing a principle-based model exclusionary test that could be adopted in almost any domestic jurisdiction, and explains how each of the previously discussed exclusionary doctrines either would or would not integrate into this proposed model exclusionary rule.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Model Rule for Excluding Improperly or Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence\",\"authors\":\"M. Madden\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38PK3M\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers several different theoretical bases for exclusionary rules within domestic criminal justice systems, and many associated countervailing considerations against exclusion, in order to identify a principled basis upon which a model exclusionary rule could be built. The article then describes, from a broad comparative perspective, various application doctrines that form part of different existing exclusionary rules, and assesses how effectively each of these doctrines can be justified in terms of one or more of the accepted bases for exclusion. Finally, building on the theoretical and comparative study within the first two parts, the article concludes by proposing a principle-based model exclusionary test that could be adopted in almost any domestic jurisdiction, and explains how each of the previously discussed exclusionary doctrines either would or would not integrate into this proposed model exclusionary rule.\",\"PeriodicalId\":325917,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Berkeley Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Berkeley Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38PK3M\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38PK3M","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考虑了国内刑事司法系统中排除规则的几种不同理论基础,以及许多与排除规则相关的反补贴考虑,以便确定可以建立模型排除规则的原则基础。然后,文章从一个广泛的比较角度描述了构成不同现有排他规则一部分的各种适用理论,并评估了这些理论在一个或多个公认的排他基础上是如何有效地被证明的。最后,在前两部分的理论和比较研究的基础上,文章最后提出了一个基于原则的模型排除规则,该模型排除规则几乎可以在任何国内司法管辖区采用,并解释了前面讨论的每种排除理论如何或不如何融入该模型排除规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Model Rule for Excluding Improperly or Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
This article considers several different theoretical bases for exclusionary rules within domestic criminal justice systems, and many associated countervailing considerations against exclusion, in order to identify a principled basis upon which a model exclusionary rule could be built. The article then describes, from a broad comparative perspective, various application doctrines that form part of different existing exclusionary rules, and assesses how effectively each of these doctrines can be justified in terms of one or more of the accepted bases for exclusion. Finally, building on the theoretical and comparative study within the first two parts, the article concludes by proposing a principle-based model exclusionary test that could be adopted in almost any domestic jurisdiction, and explains how each of the previously discussed exclusionary doctrines either would or would not integrate into this proposed model exclusionary rule.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信