错误定罪和定罪后审查:北欧国家诉诸司法的障碍

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Sara Hellqvist
{"title":"错误定罪和定罪后审查:北欧国家诉诸司法的障碍","authors":"Sara Hellqvist","doi":"10.1515/mks-2023-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract All the Nordic countries offer individuals who claim to have been wrongfully convicted the possibility to apply for post-conviction review. The research on wrongful convictions has however often discussed the risk that those cases that are identified, i.e., those cases of post-conviction review that lead to exoneration, are not representative of wrongful convictions as a whole. Moving from this background, this article provides an overview and comparison of the systems of post-conviction review in the Nordic countries, and problematises this description from an access-to-justice perspective with the aim of examining the obstacles wrongful conviction claimants may face when they attempt to pursue this review remedy. On the basis of the parameters used in this article to study accessibility of the review systems, Finland is emerging as the country with the least accessible system, whereas the Norwegian system is the most accessible, followed by that of Iceland. It is not entirely evident how Sweden and Denmark should be ranked in relation to one another however. The results are discussed from a transparency point of view, since detailed information that allows for an analysis of practice appears to be lacking in at least three of the Nordic countries.","PeriodicalId":43577,"journal":{"name":"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform","volume":"12 1","pages":"197 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wrongful Convictions and Post-Conviction Review: Barriers to Access-to-Justice in the Nordic Countries\",\"authors\":\"Sara Hellqvist\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/mks-2023-0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract All the Nordic countries offer individuals who claim to have been wrongfully convicted the possibility to apply for post-conviction review. The research on wrongful convictions has however often discussed the risk that those cases that are identified, i.e., those cases of post-conviction review that lead to exoneration, are not representative of wrongful convictions as a whole. Moving from this background, this article provides an overview and comparison of the systems of post-conviction review in the Nordic countries, and problematises this description from an access-to-justice perspective with the aim of examining the obstacles wrongful conviction claimants may face when they attempt to pursue this review remedy. On the basis of the parameters used in this article to study accessibility of the review systems, Finland is emerging as the country with the least accessible system, whereas the Norwegian system is the most accessible, followed by that of Iceland. It is not entirely evident how Sweden and Denmark should be ranked in relation to one another however. The results are discussed from a transparency point of view, since detailed information that allows for an analysis of practice appears to be lacking in at least three of the Nordic countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"197 - 213\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/mks-2023-0020\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mks-2023-0020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

所有北欧国家都为声称被错误定罪的个人提供了申请定罪后复审的可能性。然而,关于错误定罪的研究经常讨论的风险是,那些被确定的案件,即那些定罪后审查导致无罪的案件,并不代表整个错误定罪。从这一背景出发,本文概述和比较了北欧国家的定罪后审查制度,并从诉诸司法的角度对这一描述提出问题,目的是审查错误定罪的索赔人在试图寻求这种审查补救办法时可能面临的障碍。根据本文中用于研究审查制度的可及性的参数,芬兰正在成为可及性最低的国家,而挪威的制度是可及性最高的,冰岛紧随其后。然而,瑞典和丹麦之间的排名并不完全清楚。这些结果是从透明的角度来讨论的,因为至少有三个北欧国家似乎缺乏对实践进行分析的详细资料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Wrongful Convictions and Post-Conviction Review: Barriers to Access-to-Justice in the Nordic Countries
Abstract All the Nordic countries offer individuals who claim to have been wrongfully convicted the possibility to apply for post-conviction review. The research on wrongful convictions has however often discussed the risk that those cases that are identified, i.e., those cases of post-conviction review that lead to exoneration, are not representative of wrongful convictions as a whole. Moving from this background, this article provides an overview and comparison of the systems of post-conviction review in the Nordic countries, and problematises this description from an access-to-justice perspective with the aim of examining the obstacles wrongful conviction claimants may face when they attempt to pursue this review remedy. On the basis of the parameters used in this article to study accessibility of the review systems, Finland is emerging as the country with the least accessible system, whereas the Norwegian system is the most accessible, followed by that of Iceland. It is not entirely evident how Sweden and Denmark should be ranked in relation to one another however. The results are discussed from a transparency point of view, since detailed information that allows for an analysis of practice appears to be lacking in at least three of the Nordic countries.
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
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
22
×
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