司法合作者:通过克罗地亚从业人员的经验分析服务于证明目的的双方同意的程序形式

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Zoran Burić, Matko Pajčić
{"title":"司法合作者:通过克罗地亚从业人员的经验分析服务于证明目的的双方同意的程序形式","authors":"Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Zoran Burić, Matko Pajčić","doi":"10.1163/15718174-bja10042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis paper presents the research results of Croatian practitioners’ experiences in applying consensual forms which serve probative purposes. The aim of the research was to find out, through the qualitative analysis of practical experiences obtained through semi-structured interviews with 60 practitioners in criminal justice system – 20 judges, 20 state attorneys and 20 defence attorneys, and then through discussions in four focus groups, how measures of rewarding collaborators of justice are applied in practice. The focus was on procedural tools which may be used to ensure respect of the principle of legality and the lawful application of the principle of discretionary prosecution, as well as on judicial control, which should efficiently prevent “mixing the procedural roles” of the accused and the witness. Particular attention was paid to the emergence of informal agreements, which puts into question the whole concept of regulated consensual forms serving probative purposes. An analysis of the practical experiences of different stakeholders reveals the existing deficiencies of normative regulation and applied practices.","PeriodicalId":43762,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collaborators of Justice: Consensual Procedural Forms Serving Probative Purposes Analysed Through Practitioners’ Experiences in Croatia\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Zoran Burić, Matko Pajčić\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718174-bja10042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis paper presents the research results of Croatian practitioners’ experiences in applying consensual forms which serve probative purposes. The aim of the research was to find out, through the qualitative analysis of practical experiences obtained through semi-structured interviews with 60 practitioners in criminal justice system – 20 judges, 20 state attorneys and 20 defence attorneys, and then through discussions in four focus groups, how measures of rewarding collaborators of justice are applied in practice. The focus was on procedural tools which may be used to ensure respect of the principle of legality and the lawful application of the principle of discretionary prosecution, as well as on judicial control, which should efficiently prevent “mixing the procedural roles” of the accused and the witness. Particular attention was paid to the emergence of informal agreements, which puts into question the whole concept of regulated consensual forms serving probative purposes. An analysis of the practical experiences of different stakeholders reveals the existing deficiencies of normative regulation and applied practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10042\",\"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":"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10042","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

本文介绍了克罗地亚从业人员在应用双方同意的形式服务于证明目的的经验的研究结果。研究的目的是通过对60名刑事司法系统从业人员(20名法官、20名州检察官和20名辩护律师)的半结构化访谈获得的实践经验进行定性分析,然后通过四个焦点小组的讨论,找出如何在实践中应用奖励司法合作者的措施。重点是可用于确保尊重合法性原则和酌情起诉原则的合法适用的程序工具,以及司法控制,这应有效地防止被告和证人的“混合程序作用”。特别注意到非正式协定的出现,这使人们对用于证明目的的受管制的双方同意形式的整个概念产生疑问。通过对不同利益相关者实践经验的分析,揭示了规范规制和应用实践存在的不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Collaborators of Justice: Consensual Procedural Forms Serving Probative Purposes Analysed Through Practitioners’ Experiences in Croatia
This paper presents the research results of Croatian practitioners’ experiences in applying consensual forms which serve probative purposes. The aim of the research was to find out, through the qualitative analysis of practical experiences obtained through semi-structured interviews with 60 practitioners in criminal justice system – 20 judges, 20 state attorneys and 20 defence attorneys, and then through discussions in four focus groups, how measures of rewarding collaborators of justice are applied in practice. The focus was on procedural tools which may be used to ensure respect of the principle of legality and the lawful application of the principle of discretionary prosecution, as well as on judicial control, which should efficiently prevent “mixing the procedural roles” of the accused and the witness. Particular attention was paid to the emergence of informal agreements, which puts into question the whole concept of regulated consensual forms serving probative purposes. An analysis of the practical experiences of different stakeholders reveals the existing deficiencies of normative regulation and applied practices.
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
1.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
12
×
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