英格兰和学徒地之间的一片谢天谢地的广阔海域

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
T. Curr
{"title":"英格兰和学徒地之间的一片谢天谢地的广阔海域","authors":"T. Curr","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmaa023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article uses the US Supreme Court’s line of cases beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey to illuminate territory in which English law, in comparison to American law, is comparatively underdeveloped—currently affording a Newton-style hearing only where a guilty plea obliterates any previous evidence. This need not be so. Both before and after Apprendi, US federal and state courts have implemented post-trial fact-finding procedures for sentencing purposes, and we could do the same. The Davies case, where the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was imported from the trial phase, into consideration of the statutory starting points for murder sentencing, will, for reasons to be given, be doubted.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/slr/hmaa023","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Thankfully Wide Sea between England and Apprendi-Land\",\"authors\":\"T. Curr\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/slr/hmaa023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article uses the US Supreme Court’s line of cases beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey to illuminate territory in which English law, in comparison to American law, is comparatively underdeveloped—currently affording a Newton-style hearing only where a guilty plea obliterates any previous evidence. This need not be so. Both before and after Apprendi, US federal and state courts have implemented post-trial fact-finding procedures for sentencing purposes, and we could do the same. The Davies case, where the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was imported from the trial phase, into consideration of the statutory starting points for murder sentencing, will, for reasons to be given, be doubted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/slr/hmaa023\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaa023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statute Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaa023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章使用了美国最高法院从Apprendi诉新泽西州开始的一系列案件,来阐明与美国法律相比,英国法律相对不发达的领域——目前只有在认罪抹杀任何先前证据的情况下,才能举行牛顿式的听证会。事实并非如此。在Apprendi之前和之后,美国联邦和州法院都为量刑目的实施了审判后事实调查程序,我们也可以这样做。戴维斯案从审判阶段引入了排除合理怀疑的证据要求,并考虑到谋杀罪量刑的法定起点,因此,将受到怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Thankfully Wide Sea between England and Apprendi-Land
This article uses the US Supreme Court’s line of cases beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey to illuminate territory in which English law, in comparison to American law, is comparatively underdeveloped—currently affording a Newton-style hearing only where a guilty plea obliterates any previous evidence. This need not be so. Both before and after Apprendi, US federal and state courts have implemented post-trial fact-finding procedures for sentencing purposes, and we could do the same. The Davies case, where the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was imported from the trial phase, into consideration of the statutory starting points for murder sentencing, will, for reasons to be given, be doubted.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The principal objectives of the Review are to provide a vehicle for the consideration of the legislative process, the use of legislation as an instrument of public policy and of the drafting and interpretation of legislation. The Review, which was first established in 1980, is the only journal of its kind within the Commonwealth. It is of particular value to lawyers in both private practice and in public service, and to academics, both lawyers and political scientists, who write and teach within the field of legislation.
×
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