scholarly journals Plea Bargaining dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Beberapa Negara

Wajah Hukum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Nella Octaviany Siregar
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Basic Concept ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Common

Plea Bargaining System is widely interpreted as a statement of guilt of a suspect or defendant. Plea Bargaining practised in many countries that have embraced the Common Law legal system. Plea Bargaining that was developed in the common law "legal system" has inspired the emergence of "mediation" in the practice of the judiciary based on the criminal law in the Netherlands and France, known as "transactie". Plea Bargaining is categorized as a settling outside the hearing and their users is also based on specific reasons. Even in the renewal of law criminal justice events in Indonesia, has also picked up the basic concept of plea bargaining that was adopted in the RUU KUHAP with the concept of "Jalur Khusus". That with the presence of the concept of "Jalur Khusus", is also a concern when viewed can enactment back recognition of guilt of the defendant as the basis of the judge's verdict is dropping. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze the plea bargaining in some countries. The type of research used is the juridical normative research, using a conceptual approach, comparative approach, historical approach.

Boundaries of Criminal Liability: Participation in Crime, Preparatory Offences and Omissions

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-408
Author(s):  
Miriam Gur-Arye
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Anglo American

The book Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues is the first volume of an Anglo-German project which aims ‘to explore the foundational principles and concepts that underpin the different domestic systems and local rules’. It offers comparative perspectives on German and Anglo-American criminal law and criminal justice as ‘examples of the civil law and the common law worlds’. The comparisons ‘dig beneath the superficial similarities or differences between legal rules to identify and compare the underlying concepts, values, principles, and structures of thought’. The review essay focuses on the topics of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime, all of which extend the typical criminal liability. It presents the comparative German and Anglo-American perspectives discussed in the book with regard to each topic and adds the perspective of Israeli criminal law. It points out the features common to all these topics as an extension of criminal liability and discusses the underlying considerations that justify the criminalisation of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime. In evaluating whether extending criminal liability in these contexts is justified, the review essay suggests reliance on two main notions: that of ‘control over the commission of the offence’ and that of ‘liberty (or personal freedom)’.

scholarly journals A Triumph of Liberalism: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Exclusion of Evidence

1969 ◽  
pp. 299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julianne Parfett
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cost

The common law has historically defined self- incrimination narrowly. Using Packer's models of the criminal justice system as a framework, the article examines the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretations of s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Court has expanded the definitions of both self incrimination and remoteness. The author argues that s. 24(2) has ceased to be a remedy requiring the balancing of interests and has become a quasi- automatic rule of exclusion, which promotes individual rights at the cost of victim's rights. Further, in the Court's zeal to protect the integrity of the system, there is no allowance made for the seriousness of the breach, the consequences of the exclusion, or the causal connection between the breach and any evidence obtained. The author argues that this has resulted in a justice system more concerned with police behaviour than with the pursuit of truth. Instead, either the exclusionary rule must be used to foster a balance of individual and communitarian rights, or other more imaginative remedies should be crafted from s. 24(2) to protect the integrity of the legal system.

scholarly journals Reviewing the Comparison of the Legal Bankruptcy System Between Indonesia and the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 2290-2296
Author(s):  
Sumurung P Simaremare, Bismar Nasution, Sunarmic, Edi Yunara
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Bankruptcy Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Times ◽  
Debt Collection

Introduction: Dutch colonialisation of Indonesia provides many legacies, one of which is a legal product. The bankruptcy law specifically initially adopted Verordening Faillisements as the bankruptcy law. The development of the times was followed by the increasing complexity of the problems and demands for resolution-making legal changes necessary, of course, this happened in the two countries with the Netherlands, which used the Dutch Bankruptcy Act and Indonesia with Law Number 34 of 2004 having differences in the classification of Bankruptcy and its resolution. Research Objectives: This study analyses the bankruptcy legal system's comparison between Indonesia and the Netherlands. Research Methods: The type of research used is normative legal research with a comparative approach. Conclusion: The comparison of the two bankruptcy laws was carried out to explore the differences between the two, which could be used as a basis for policy analysis that might later involve the two countries and reform the bankruptcy law in Indonesia in the future. The comparison of bankruptcy law is carried out using a statutory approach, comparative approach, a conceptual approach, and a historical approach. There are differences between the two laws of Bankruptcy adopted by Indonesia and the Netherlands, especially in determining a business's bankruptcy status and settling the Debtor's remaining debt to creditors. Where each country's legal system closely influences these differences, it is concluded that through its development, the Netherlands has implemented the Debt Forgiveness principle, contrary to Indonesia's principles, which still adheres to the Debt Collection principle.

4. Character

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
Complex Question

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter concerns a complex question in criminal evidence: situations where defendants may adduce evidence of good character to suggest lack of guilt and support credibility, and those where prosecution counsel or counsel for the co-defendant may cross-examine them on previous ‘reprehensible’ behaviour. The exclusionary rule was fundamental to the English legal system and founded on the principle that the defendant should have a fair trial. The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 made comprehensive changes to the rules of admissibility of evidence of bad character of the defendant and witnesses providing that ‘the common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished’. There is now a presumption of admissibility of that evidence.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HAK PATEN (Studi Komparatif Lingkup Perlindungan di Berbagai Negara)

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 697
Author(s):  
Sutarman Yodo
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Law System ◽  
United State ◽  
The Difference

AbstractThe differences of the legal system that patent scope protection in various countries, not only importing for new investment but determine the process of transfers of the technology of a state. Widespread protection cause transfers of technology become not easy eventhought less protection cause patent owner quit being lost. Both difference intention results in the need of comparative study on protection scope of the patent in countries. There are two problems should be explored, first what is the difference and similarity scope patent protection in the state's regulation and the second how legal system influenced to the differ occurrence? These problems used research methods that are statute approach and comparative approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. Result research found patent protection in Europe countries, United State, Japan, and Indonesia had similarity in protection requirement regulated such novelty, inventive step, and industrial applied. However, United State protection base on first to invent meanwhile other state based on first to file. Then scope of patent protection there has Germany applied the widest protection, then United State, and Japan, then Netherland. Mean England as the limited protection country. The difference patent protection is influenced by the legal system such common law that more referred to the precedent than civil law system with its codification. Germany is the only one country applied rigid codification on patent protection. Means, Indonesia formulated the of patent protection that is still limited related to the limited cases resolved in court. Keywords: Patent Right, Scope Protection, Comparative Law.AbstrakPerbedaan sistem hukum perlindungan lingkup paten di berbagai negara, tidak hanya mengimpor investasi baru namun juga menentukan proses transfer teknologi suatu negara. Perlindungan yang meluas menyebabkan transfer teknologi menjadi tidak mudah walaupun kurangnya perlindungan karena pemilik paten mengalami kerugian. Kedua perbedaan niat tersebut menghasilkan perlunya studi komparatif tentang cakupan perlindungan paten di negara-negara. Ada dua masalah yang harus dijajaki, pertama apa perbedaan dan kesamaan cakupan perlindungan paten dalam peraturan negara dan yang kedua bagaimana sistem hukum mempengaruhi kejadian yang berbeda? Masalah ini akan menggunakan metode penelitian pendekatan statuta menyeluruh dan pendekatan komparatif, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menemukan perlindungan paten di negara-negara Eropa, Amerika Serikat, Jepang, dan Indonesia memiliki kesamaan dalam persyaratan proteksi yang mengatur hal baru, langkah inventif, dan penerapan industri. Namun, perlindungan di Amerika Serikat pada awalnya untuk menciptakan sementara basis negara lain berdasarkan berkas pertama. Kemudian ruang lingkup proteksi paten di sana telah ada Jerman menerapkan proteksi terluas, kemudian Amerika Serikat, dan Jepang, lalu Belanda. Berarti Inggris sebagai negara perlindungan terbatas. Perbedaan proteksi paten dipengaruhi oleh sistem hukum common law yang lebih mengacu pada precedent daripada civil law dengan kodifikasinya. Jerman adalah satu-satunya negara yang menerapkan kodifikasi yang kaku terhadap perlindungan paten. Berarti, Indonesia merumuskan cakupan proteksi paten yang masih terbatas yang terkait dengan terbatasnya kasus yang diselesaikan di pengadilan. Kata kunci: Hak Paten, Perlindungan Ruang Lingkup, Hukum Komparatif

2. An overview of the English legal system

2020 ◽  
pp. 26-69
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
System P ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter provides an introduction to some of the key concepts, themes, and institutions of the English legal system. The overview highlights fundamental concepts and principles such as parliamentary supremacy, the rule of law, legislation, the common law, and equity. There is a focus on ensuring you have a firm grasp of terminology and the differences between the criminal law and civil law. The relationship between the English legal system and the European Union (EU) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is also distinguished and explained. In the latter part of the chapter, a summary of the courts, their composition, and their jurisdiction, as well as other legal bodies and personnel in the English legal system, is provided.

4. Character of defendant

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
Complex Question

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter concerns a complex question in criminal evidence: situations where defendants may adduce evidence of good character to suggest lack of guilt and support credibility, and those where prosecution counsel or counsel for the co-defendant may cross-examine them on previous ‘reprehensible’ behaviour. The exclusionary rule was fundamental to the English legal system and founded on the principle that the defendant should have a fair trial. The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 made comprehensive changes to the rules of admissibility of evidence of bad character of the defendant and witnesses providing that ‘the common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished’. There is now a presumption of admissibility of that evidence.

Uncommon Law: America's Excessive Criminal Law & Our Common-Law Origins

Daedalus ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
pp. 62-72
Author(s):  
Jonathan Simon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Social Order ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
The Common

This essay explores the role that U.S. criminal courts play in shaping the uniquely punitive social order of the United States. U.S. courts have long been defined against the common law of England, from which they emerged. In this essay, I consider the English legacy and suggest that while the United States does draw heavily from common-law traditions, it has also innovated to alter them, a process that has established a criminal justice system even more punitive than that of England.

scholarly journals From Norms to Facts: The Realization of Rights in Common and Civil Private Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helge Dedek
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
The Ideal

Every legal system that ties judicial decision making to a body of preconceived norms has to face the tension between the normative formulation of the ideal and its approximation in social reality. In the parlance of the common law, it is, more concretely, the remedy that bridges the gap between the ideal and the real, or, rather, between norms and facts. In the common law world—particularly in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—a lively discourse has developed around the question of how rights relate to remedies. To the civilian legal scholar—used to thinking within a framework that strictly categorizes terms like substance and procedure, subjective right, action, and execution—the concept of remedy remains a mystery. The lack of “remedy” in the vocabulary of the civil law is more than just a matter of attaching different labels to functional equivalents, it is the expression of a different way of thinking about law. Only if a legal system is capable of satisfactorily transposing the abstract discourse of the law into social reality does the legal machinery fulfill its purpose: due to the pivotal importance of this translational process, the way it is cast in legal concepts thus allows for an insight into the deep structure of a legal culture, and, convergence notwithstanding, the remaining epistemological differences between the legal traditions of the West. A mixed jurisdiction must reflect upon these differences in order to understand its own condition and to define its future course.

scholarly journals Thabo Meli Revisited: The Pernicious Effects of Result-Driven Decisions

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Arenson
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Natural Consequence ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
The Common

Despite the hackneyed expression that ‘judges should interpret the law and not make it’, the fact remains that there is some scope within the separation of powers doctrine for the courts to develop the common law incrementally. To this extent, the courts can effectively legislate, but only to this limited extent if they are to respect the separation of powers doctrine. On occasion, however, the courts have usurped the power entrusted to Parliament, and particularly so in instances where a strict application of the existing law would lead to results that offend their personal notions of what is fair and just. When this occurs, the natural consequence is that lawyers, academics and the public in general lose respect for both the judges involved as well as the adversarial system of criminal justice. In order to illustrate this point, attention will focus on the case of Thabo Meli v United Kingdom in which the Privy Council, mistakenly believing that it could not reach its desired outcome through a strict application of the common law rule of temporal coincidence, emasculated the rule beyond recognition in order to convict the accused. Moreover, the discussion to follow will demonstrate that not only was the court wrong in its belief that the case involved the doctrine of temporal coincidence, but the same result would have been achieved had the Council correctly identified the issue as one of legal causation and correctly applied the principles relating thereto.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document