非被告不良品格与2003年《刑事司法法》第100条:对可采性门槛与审判策略的社会-法律分析

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Matt Thomason
{"title":"非被告不良品格与2003年《刑事司法法》第100条:对可采性门槛与审判策略的社会-法律分析","authors":"Matt Thomason","doi":"10.1177/13657127221140459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents a socio-legal analysis of the use of non-defendant bad character evidence in Crown Court criminal trials in England. Combining an in-depth doctrinal analysis of s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 with original qualitative empirical methods (interviews with trial counsel and observations of real Crown Court trials), the article explores the real-life practical operation of this rule of exclusion and its associated inclusionary exceptions, and the role that non-defendant bad character can have on trial tactics of counsel. In doing so, it argues that illogical Court of Appeal decisions on the use of bad character for credibility purposes are causing confusion in practice, that the ‘tit-for-tat’ gateway for defendant bad character is a more significant hurdle than s. 100 itself, and that counsel often eschew bad character applications for fear of alienating the jury.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"27 1","pages":"26 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-defendant bad character and s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: A socio-legal analysis of admissibility gateways and trial tactics\",\"authors\":\"Matt Thomason\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127221140459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article presents a socio-legal analysis of the use of non-defendant bad character evidence in Crown Court criminal trials in England. Combining an in-depth doctrinal analysis of s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 with original qualitative empirical methods (interviews with trial counsel and observations of real Crown Court trials), the article explores the real-life practical operation of this rule of exclusion and its associated inclusionary exceptions, and the role that non-defendant bad character can have on trial tactics of counsel. In doing so, it argues that illogical Court of Appeal decisions on the use of bad character for credibility purposes are causing confusion in practice, that the ‘tit-for-tat’ gateway for defendant bad character is a more significant hurdle than s. 100 itself, and that counsel often eschew bad character applications for fear of alienating the jury.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"26 - 50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221140459\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221140459","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对英国刑事法院刑事审判中非被告不良品格证据的使用进行了社会-法律分析。结合对2003年刑事司法法案第100条的深入理论分析和原始的定性实证方法(与审判律师的访谈和对真实皇家法院审判的观察),本文探讨了这一排除规则及其相关的包容性例外的现实实践操作,以及非被告不良性格对律师审判策略的作用。在这样做的过程中,它辩称,上诉法院关于将不良品格用于可信度目的的不合逻辑的决定在实践中造成了混乱,被告不良品格的“以牙还牙”的门槛比第100条本身更大,律师经常因害怕疏远陪审团而回避不良品格的申请。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-defendant bad character and s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: A socio-legal analysis of admissibility gateways and trial tactics
This article presents a socio-legal analysis of the use of non-defendant bad character evidence in Crown Court criminal trials in England. Combining an in-depth doctrinal analysis of s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 with original qualitative empirical methods (interviews with trial counsel and observations of real Crown Court trials), the article explores the real-life practical operation of this rule of exclusion and its associated inclusionary exceptions, and the role that non-defendant bad character can have on trial tactics of counsel. In doing so, it argues that illogical Court of Appeal decisions on the use of bad character for credibility purposes are causing confusion in practice, that the ‘tit-for-tat’ gateway for defendant bad character is a more significant hurdle than s. 100 itself, and that counsel often eschew bad character applications for fear of alienating the jury.
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
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
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