Search results

»Proceedings ›in absentia‹ in comparative and international criminal law« finds a normative approach to the question whether trial ›in absentia‹ is suitable for International Criminal Tribunals by applying classical sources of international criminal law and combining institutional aspects of the procedural theory, specifically the goals of the international criminal trial, with the individual frameworks of fundamental rights, namely the right to be present. Through a critical analysis of concepts presented as models for trial ›in absentia‹ it introduces a new concept for trials ›in absentia‹ which considers both the defendant's right and duty to be present. The book thereby establishes a connection between legal theory, international criminal procedural law, international human rights law and comparative law on the one hand and – considering the high number of accused of International Criminal Tribunals at large – a highly relevant procedural question on the other hand. / »Proceedings ›in absentia‹ in comparative and international criminal law« finds a normative approach to the question whether trial ›in absentia‹ is suitable for International Criminal Tribunals by applying classical sources of international criminal law and combining institutional aspects of the procedural theory, specifically the goals of the international criminal trial, with the individual frameworks of fundamental rights, namely the right to be present. Through a critical analysis of concepts presented as models for trial ›in absentia‹ it introduces a new concept for trials ›in absentia‹ which considers both the defendant's right and duty to be present. The book thereby establishes a connection between legal theory, international criminal procedural law, international human rights law and comparative law on the one hand and – considering the high number of accused of International Criminal Tribunals at large – a highly relevant procedural question on the other hand.

Abstract
This review essay discusses two books: Fairness and Rights in International Criminal Procedure by Sophie Rigney and Punishing Atrocities through a Fair Trial by Jonathan Hafetz. It discusses the methods used in each book, their conceptions of fairness, and what they see as the future of fairness in international criminal law. The review argues that when the two books are read together they show how far fairness has come, where it is now, and where fairness is headed in the future.

In the context of growing calls for a new law criminalising cyberflashing – the digital distribution of penis images to another without consent – this article makes the case for a comprehensive, 'consent-based' criminal offence specifically targeting cyberflashing. It justifies this approach by examining the core wrongs of cyberflashing and suggests draft legislative text for such an offence. In making this case, the article analyses and rejects the Law Commission's recent proposal for a 'motive-based' cyberflashing law. Ultimately, it is argued that while the Law Commission's proposal is a welcome recognition of the harms of cyberflashing and need for reform, it does not go far enough to offer the redress victim-survivors are seeking, nor does it provide an appropriate normative foundation for education and preventative initiatives.

This Essay sketches an ideal of criminal law—of the kind of criminal law that we can call our own as citizens of a democratic republic. The elements of that ideal include a republican theory of liberal democracy, as the kind of polity in which we can aspire to live; an account of the role of criminal law in such a polity, as defining a set of public wrongs and providing an appropriate formal, public response to the commission of such wrongs through the criminal process of trial and punishment; and a discussion of how the citizens of such a polity will relate to their criminal law and of the various active roles that they will be ready to play in the law's enterprise. This account does not aim to describe, or to justify, our existing systems of criminal law. Instead, it offers a normative ideal against which we can judge our existing institutions, and towards which we can strive to reform them.

Events surrounding the recent proposals for the reform of the English law of evidence in criminal cases may be thought to afford a cautionary tale, indicating the wrong way to engage in public debate upon such matters. In 1964, the Home Secretary asked the Criminal Law Revision Committee to review the law of evidence in criminal cases. Before its Report1 was published (some eight years later), and, indeed, before the Home Secretary had himself received it, there occurred a flood of critical comment in the Press and on radio and television, and questions in Parliament, on what were thought (not altogether accurately) to be the main recommendations about to be made. Those very critics who had thus jumped the gun then proceeded to blame the Committee itself for what had happened, on the ground that its work had not been sufficiently 'open' to the public. This seems to be less than fair to the Committee, since its task was publicised in the Press and in Parliament and the public were invited to comment; the Committee consulted those bodies likely to be interested and obtained the assistance of experts from overseas (among whom Professors Edwards, Friedland and Tollefson of Canada are mentioned in the Report).

The article shall be devoted to the problematics of Sports law in Latvia. Mainly authors shall be determining through the prism of civil and criminal law how does Sports law in Latvia looks like today, how it manifests itself and at what stage of development it allocates itself. The following chapters shall be observed:1) Introduction: the origin of Sports Law in Latvia, 2) Sports Law through the prism of civil law; 3) Sports Law through the prism of criminal law; 4) Conclusions. The main problematics in question is whether there exists sports law in Latvia and what are the controversial issues in the national legislation regarding sports. The article is based on the analysis of legislature and relevant documents.

Statutory construction and interpretation, important in every field of law, is vital in a field containing a large number of legislative acts and a considerable body of appellate court decisions construing them. For this reason alone, statutory construction problems are particularly significant in criminal law. Many American jurisdictions punish no activity other than that expressly declared criminal by statute.' The Federal Government, which of course punishes no crimes except those defined by Congress, has contributed to this growth of the criminal law through the imposition of many duties and the proscription of various activities relating to the collection of revenue, national defense, regulation of interstate and foreign commerce and the several other fields into which Federal Government activity is continually expanding. Without the reinforcement of statutory specifications, several states punish conduct which was punishable under common law principles. Even in these jurisdictions, the complexities of our present civilization have required definition of additional conduct the community feels departs from its presently accepted standards. The expansion of state government, also, into fields not previously regulated, and the emergence of many types of conduct unknown to the common law, have made statutory crimes of the first importance.