频率与成功:刑法辩护、联邦宪法证据要求和辩诉谈判的实证研究

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences
S. G. Valdes
{"title":"频率与成功:刑法辩护、联邦宪法证据要求和辩诉谈判的实证研究","authors":"S. G. Valdes","doi":"10.2307/4150639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discussions of criminal law defenses typically focus on policy issues, with pundits, lawmakers, and scholars each advocating different grounds for allowing various defenses. While the insanity defense and plea negotiations have been the subject of intense philosophical and statistical scrutiny, most defenses have simply been accepted as part of the system without any empirical examination of their use. This survey of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys investigates the frequency and success rates of six defenses (entrapment, statutes of limitations, double jeopardy, diplomatic immunity, insanity, and reasonable mistake of law), three constitutional evidentiary provisions (the Fourth Amendment search and seizure exclusionary rule, the Fifth Amendment Miranda rule, and Sixth Amendment faulty identification procedures), and plea negotiations.","PeriodicalId":48012,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","volume":"153 1","pages":"1709"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/4150639","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frequency and Success: An Empirical Study of Criminal Law Defenses, Federal Constitutional Evidentiary Claims, and Plea Negotiations\",\"authors\":\"S. G. Valdes\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/4150639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Discussions of criminal law defenses typically focus on policy issues, with pundits, lawmakers, and scholars each advocating different grounds for allowing various defenses. While the insanity defense and plea negotiations have been the subject of intense philosophical and statistical scrutiny, most defenses have simply been accepted as part of the system without any empirical examination of their use. This survey of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys investigates the frequency and success rates of six defenses (entrapment, statutes of limitations, double jeopardy, diplomatic immunity, insanity, and reasonable mistake of law), three constitutional evidentiary provisions (the Fourth Amendment search and seizure exclusionary rule, the Fifth Amendment Miranda rule, and Sixth Amendment faulty identification procedures), and plea negotiations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"volume\":\"153 1\",\"pages\":\"1709\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/4150639\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/4150639\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/4150639","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

关于刑法辩护的讨论通常集中在政策问题上,专家、立法者和学者各自主张允许各种辩护的不同理由。虽然精神错乱辩护和认罪谈判一直是哲学和统计上严格审查的主题,但大多数辩护都被简单地接受为系统的一部分,而没有对其使用进行任何实证检验。这项对检察官、法官和辩护律师的调查调查了六种辩护(陷阱、诉讼时效、双重审判、外交豁免、精神错乱和合理的法律错误)、三种宪法证据条款(第四修正案搜查和扣押排除规则、第五修正案米兰达规则、第六修正案错误鉴定程序)和认罪谈判的频率和成功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Frequency and Success: An Empirical Study of Criminal Law Defenses, Federal Constitutional Evidentiary Claims, and Plea Negotiations
Discussions of criminal law defenses typically focus on policy issues, with pundits, lawmakers, and scholars each advocating different grounds for allowing various defenses. While the insanity defense and plea negotiations have been the subject of intense philosophical and statistical scrutiny, most defenses have simply been accepted as part of the system without any empirical examination of their use. This survey of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys investigates the frequency and success rates of six defenses (entrapment, statutes of limitations, double jeopardy, diplomatic immunity, insanity, and reasonable mistake of law), three constitutional evidentiary provisions (the Fourth Amendment search and seizure exclusionary rule, the Fifth Amendment Miranda rule, and Sixth Amendment faulty identification procedures), and plea negotiations.
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
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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