About the burden of proof regarding self-defense and insanity in Korean Criminal Procedure after the enactment of Article 307 (2)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 231-261
Author(s):  
Doosik Kim
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Self Defense

scholarly journals Delayed Justice - Macedonian Experience With Guilty Plea And Sentence Bargaining

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-110
Author(s):  
Boban Misoski
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Bargaining Process ◽  
Guilty Plea ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Weak Points ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Bearing on mind the idea of the proverb “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” Macedonian Legislator within the new Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) has introduced several legal mechanisms for accelerating the criminal procedure. The most important instruments among them, by all means, are the Guilty Plea and Sentence Bargaining. In this article, the author elaborates the practical implementation of these CPC’s provisions and performs analysis of its implementation by the Basic Court Skopje 1 in Skopje, as the biggest and most caseload-burdened court in Macedonia, and by the Public Prosecution Office in Skopje. The analysis discovered several weak points, which should be properly addressed, both through theoretical scrutiny and through introduction of amendments to the CPC or through production of a general opinion by the Supreme Court. Only through these amendments to the legal provisions of the CPC can be expected to have improved court practice in a manner which would accentuate the real/just benefits of these instruments for accelerating of the criminal procedure. Several conclusions and suggestions for improvement or specific issues, which were determined as problematic were developed, such as: tackling the impact of a guilty plea by one of the codefendants to the other codefendants who did not plead guilty; treatment of the altered statement by one of the codefendants during the plea agreement and its use against the other codefendant; and the burden of proof and amount of evidence which is necessary to support the sentence bargaining process.

scholarly journals PEMBALIKAN BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA DALAM PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DI INDONESIA

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Marwan Effendy
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Servant ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Law

AbstrakReversal burden of proof is one of several developing legal doctrine'sregarding criminal procedure law areas, under the law No. 31 1999 yearconcerning against corruption (amended by law No. 202001 year and LawNo. 30 2002 year concerning Commison Against Corruption) hascaracterized combination betwen balanced burden of proof and absoluteburden of proof where the burden of proof not only applicable for corruptioncrime and is placed to the accused front of the court, but is ordered toattorney too beside is burdened to civil servant or state executive out ofcourt.

scholarly journals Some Ethical Landmarks Regarding the Settlement of the Civil Action by the Prosecutor

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-52
Author(s):  
Florin Octavian Barbu ◽  
◽  
Claudiu Gabriel Neacșu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Procedure Code

Article 20 para. 2 thesis 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that, in addition to specifying the nature and amount of the claims, the declaration of civil party must contain the applicable reasons and evidence. This provision must be regarded in conjunction with art. 20 para. 1 thesis I I of the Criminal Procedure Code, as regards the final moment until the party must fulfill the essential conditions iprovided by law, which are absolutely necessary for a valid legal claim. In addition, the obligations of the civil party regarding the conditions for filing the declaration of civil party must be cumulatively met. The need for the act of constitution as a civil party to indicate the evidence that the claim resides on results not only from the general form that a civil action must fulfill (as it is regulated in the civil procedure legislation, according to art. 194 letter e of the Civil Procedure Code], but also from the obligation stipulated by art. 99 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the sense that, in the civil action, the burden of proof falls on the civil party, unless the prosecutor exercises the civil action for the persons protected by art. 19 para. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which case the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor. The settlement of the civil action exercised in the criminal trials falls within the prerogative of the criminal court, which may admit it, dismiss it or leave the civil action unresolved.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN SISTEM PEMBUKTIAN TERBALIK TERHADAP TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI (SEBUAH UPAYA PROGRESIF DALAM PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI)

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muwahid
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Conventional System ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Law

<p align="center"><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p>The main object of this research is the regulation reversal burden of proof system of corruption in Act Number 20 of 2001. This research is a normative legal research, data obtained from primary legal materials that legislation, and secondary legal materials namely, books, journals and law relating to the burden of proof. The technique of data analysis uses content analysis.The results of research showed, <em>First</em> the reversal burden of proof system in criminal law of corruption stipulated in Article 12B paragraph (1), Article 37, Article 38A and Article 38B of Act Number 20 of 2001 on the eradication of corruption.<em> Second,</em> the application of reversal burden of proof principle in a criminal act of corruption is a specific provision in the law of criminal procedure, as a way to take war or eradicate of the corruption which is an extra ordinary crime, this provision is evidence of irregularities in the conventional system as was stipulated by the Criminal Code, in this case applies the principle of <em>lex specialis derogat lex generalis.</em><em></em></p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: <em>Aplication,</em> <em>Reversal Burden of Proof, Corruption.</em></p>

scholarly journals Mechanisms of attaining the objectives of criminal procedure on preservation of victims’ rights, freedoms and legitimate interests and prevention of secondary victimization in pre-trial investigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 95-111
Author(s):  
Viktor Novozhylov
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Secondary Victimization ◽  
Victim Status ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Legal Entitlement ◽  
Procedural Rights

The study is devoted to the issue of legal mechanism of attaining the objectives of criminal procedure on preservation of victims’ rights, freedoms and legitimate interests and prevention of secondary victimization in pre-trial proceedings (initiation of criminal proceedings and pre-trial investigation). This mechanism is composed of the procedure of legal entitlement of a harmed person with procedural status of victim, which provides the opportunity to participate sub actively in criminal process and to take advantages from corresponding legal guarantees in the process; the procedure for providing victims with a written acknowledgement of their formal complaint by criminal justice system officials that ensures that victim’s claim on the assumption that he or she has suffered some sort of harm as a direct result of criminal offense had been committed, is considered as true and simultaneously is examined by providing pre-trial investigation; ensuring that victims have been provided with the opportunity to receive preservation and protection of their violated procedural rights, in particular by providing access to challenge in court in pre-trial investigation processdecisions, actions or actions of investigator, inquirer, prosecutor or investigating judge. The author states that the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine prescribe that entitling of a harmed person with victim status is made through autodynamic procedure and that the Code purposely does not lie the burden of proof for attest suffered harm on the victim, which he or she proclaimed in a complaint. The common legal Presumption of Integrity and good faith of the person is embodied in mentioned legal provision and, as the author pointed out, have led to the obligation of competent officers to use an Anticipatory Trust Doctrine in resolving the issue of deprivation of the procedural status of the victim. The burden of proof for absence of harm is lied on investigator or prosecutor according to the author’s interpretation of Part 5 Art. 55 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Code purposely does not provide the procedure for deprivation of the procedural status of victim in the stage of Trial too. Court order of investigating judge on the cancellation of the prosecutor's decision on deprivation of the procedural status of victim, ipso facto, entitling the complainant with victim status, as it restores the normative provision of first paragraph of Part 2 Art. 55 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. The author analyzed nationwide statistic of court orders of investigating judge in two-last-years period and concluded that, on the one hand, the harmed persons often believe that their procedural rights are violated or ignored in pre-trial proceedings (at the initiation of criminal proceedings and in pre-trial investigation), which is leading to increased risks of secondary victimization; on the other hand, the rates of satisfaction of victims' complaints by the investigating judge are high, which proves the effectiveness of the institution of challenging in correcting mistakes that were committed earlier. Keywords: secondary victimization, objectives of criminal procedure, victim, harmed person, anticipatory trust doctrine, presumption of victims’ integrity, preservation of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of victims, legal entitlement with status of the victim, acquisition of the status of the victim, deprivation of the procedural status of victim, refusal to recognize the victim, challenging in pre-trial investigation.

Evidence: Wrongful Death: Self-Defense: Burden of Proof

1955 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
Robert S. Daggett
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Wrongful Death

Experts, translators, professionals (Chap. 22 CCP) after amendment. Selected issue

2015 ◽  
Vol 290 ◽  
pp. 75-80
Author(s):  
Kazimierz J. Pawelec
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
General Part

The last big revision of the code of criminal procedure introduced many changes to chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with evidence. These changes also did not circumvent Chapter 22 containing regulations regarding experts, professionals and translators. They are not particularly important, but in conjunction with any changes in the general part of criminal procedure including the rules on burden of proof, probative process, amended rules regarding the benefit of the doubt, probative preclusion and others, acquire special importance. This was also the basic issues of this publication, especially since a criminal trial is not devoted exclusively to sentencing, but rather, above all, reaching the material truth. Now, increasingly, it is necessary to use procedural authorities with the help of experts and specialists. Likewise, the parties cannot remain indifferent to the huge improvement, in all fields of knowledge, and therefore the use of expert assistance becomes a necessity for them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document