'Reasonably Predictable': the Reluctance to Embrace Judicial Discretion for Substantial Assistance Departures

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. India Geronimo Thusi
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (20) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luís Felipe Schneider Kircher

O presente trabalho trata sobre o convencimento judicial e as possibilidades de controle do juízo de fato no âmbito processual penal. Especialmente, busca-se apresentar de forma conceitual e prática os modelos de constatação (standards de prova) como forma de se viabilizar uma instrumentação (tendencialmente) efetiva de reavaliação da análise judicial acerca da suficiência do material probatório. Para isso, foi investigado o estado da arte do tema na doutrina e, no âmbito prático, como isso tem sido aplicado pelo Tribunal Penal Internacional em suas decisões. A escolha do TPI ocorreu porque naquele tribunal vem se debatendo (e aplicando) de forma (relativamente) consistente sobre os standards de prova. Já que esta matéria tem tido pouca atenção no Brasil, procurou-se a experiência internacional para chamar a atenção sobre a sua importância e fomentar o debate por aqui.


Author(s):  
Xin Dai

AbstractIn the sentencing of murder cases in England and Wales, it is required by law that judges must take into consideration the factors listed in sentencing laws and guidelines (henceforth statutory factors). However, judges also have the discretion to include factors that are not listed in such laws or guidelines (henceforth non-statutory factors). This paper explores judges’ positioning towards legal constraints and judicial discretion in sentencing by applying the Appraisal framework to analyse statutory and non-statutory factors in the sentencing remarks for a randomly selected murder case. The major analytical findings are that, with regard to statutory factors, attitudes are implicit and are mainly presented through heteroglossia, while, with regard to non-statutory factors, attitudes are explicit and are mainly presented through monoglossia. These different appraisal features of statutory and non-statutory factors reflect the constraints of sentencing laws and guidelines on the judge’s sentencing practice, and the judge’s full play of judicial discretion in the sentencing of this case. It is expected that findings of this study could add to current understanding of sentencing practice, while its analytical procedure could facilitate appraisal analysis of more sentencing remarks, which would, in turn, complement socio-legal studies on sentencing practice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110022
Author(s):  
Jennifer Porter

The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document