制定合理的决策

C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"制定合理的决策","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines decision-making and the use of discretion within the Criminal Cases Review Commission using socio-legal analysis, with particular emphasis on the application of the real possibility test at screening, investigation, and referral back to the Court of Appeal. It also describes the theoretical framework used in the review of the Commission's discretion and decision-making. The chapter begins with a discussion of how the Commission decides whether there is new evidence and whether that evidence gives rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will find the conviction to be unsafe. It then considers the legal and socio-legal literature on discretion, highlighting the key features of discretionary behaviour and how it is facilitated and constrained in practice. Finally, it explores three concepts proposed by Keith Hawkins in the context of legal decision-making: ‘surround’, ‘field’, and ‘frame’.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"147 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Sense of Decision-making\",\"authors\":\"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter examines decision-making and the use of discretion within the Criminal Cases Review Commission using socio-legal analysis, with particular emphasis on the application of the real possibility test at screening, investigation, and referral back to the Court of Appeal. It also describes the theoretical framework used in the review of the Commission's discretion and decision-making. The chapter begins with a discussion of how the Commission decides whether there is new evidence and whether that evidence gives rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will find the conviction to be unsafe. It then considers the legal and socio-legal literature on discretion, highlighting the key features of discretionary behaviour and how it is facilitated and constrained in practice. Finally, it explores three concepts proposed by Keith Hawkins in the context of legal decision-making: ‘surround’, ‘field’, and ‘frame’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":425336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reasons to Doubt\",\"volume\":\"147 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/9780198794578.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reasons to Doubt","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0003","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

本章使用社会法律分析审查刑事案件审查委员会的决策和自由裁量权的使用,特别强调在筛选、调查和转回上诉法院时应用真实可能性测试。它还描述了在审查委员会的自由裁量权和决策时所使用的理论框架。本章首先讨论了委员会如何决定是否有新的证据,以及这些证据是否确实有可能使上诉法院认定定罪不安全。然后,它考虑了自由裁量权的法律和社会法律文献,突出了自由裁量权行为的关键特征,以及在实践中如何促进和限制它。最后,探讨了基思·霍金斯在法律决策方面提出的三个概念:“环绕”、“场域”和“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。
Making Sense of Decision-making
This chapter examines decision-making and the use of discretion within the Criminal Cases Review Commission using socio-legal analysis, with particular emphasis on the application of the real possibility test at screening, investigation, and referral back to the Court of Appeal. It also describes the theoretical framework used in the review of the Commission's discretion and decision-making. The chapter begins with a discussion of how the Commission decides whether there is new evidence and whether that evidence gives rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will find the conviction to be unsafe. It then considers the legal and socio-legal literature on discretion, highlighting the key features of discretionary behaviour and how it is facilitated and constrained in practice. Finally, it explores three concepts proposed by Keith Hawkins in the context of legal decision-making: ‘surround’, ‘field’, and ‘frame’.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信