The prosecution service function within the spanish criminal justice system

The Spanish judicial system is independent and headed by the Supreme Court. Spain has a civil law system. The criminal procedure is governed by the legality principle--by opposition to the opportunity or expediency principle--which implies that prosecution must take place in all cases in which sufficient evidence exists of guilt. Traditionally, the role of the PPS in Spain has been very limited during the investigative stage of the process. That stage is under the responsibility of the Examining Magistrate (EM). Since the end of the 1980s, a series of modifications has been introduced in order to extend the functions of the PPS. In 1988, the PPS received extended competences which allow them to receive reports of offenses. Upon knowing of an offense (reported or known to have been committed), the PPS can initiate the criminal proceeding. The PPS is also allowed to lead a sort of plea bargain under a series of restrictive conditions and only for some offenses. At the same time, the PPS received extended competences in the juvenile justice criminal proceeding in 2000. With all this said, the role of the PPS has not changed radically and, during the investigative stage of the process, their main role remains the presentation of the accusation, playing a more active role during the trial stage of the proceeding. In this article the national criminal justice system of Spain is described. Special attention is paid to the function of the PPS within this framework and its relationship to police and courts. The article refers to legal provisions and the factual handling of criminal cases.

What is the value of forensic science? : an overview of the effectiveness of forensic science in the Australian criminal justice system project

Forensic science is increasingly relied upon by law enforcement to assist in solvingcrime and gaining convictions, and by the judicial system in the adjudication ofspecific criminal cases. However, the value of forensic science relative to the workinvolved and the outcome of cases has yet to be established in the Australiancontext. Previous research in this area has mainly focused on the science andtechnology, rather than examining how people can use forensic services/science tothe best possible advantage to produce appropriate justice outcomes. This fiveyearproject entails an investigation into the effectiveness of forensic science inpolice investigations and court trials. It aims to identify when, where and howforensic science can add value to criminal investigations, court trials and justiceoutcomes while ensuring the efficient use of available resources initially in theVictorian and the ACT criminal justice systems and ultimately across Australiaand New Zealand. This paper provides an overview of the rationale and aims ofthe research project and discusses current work-in-progress.

The Criminal Justice Approach : Case Exemples

This article provides an overview of the various forms of proceedings available within 11 European criminal justice systems and reflects upon their core features. It also provides a picture of how far alternative, non-criminal proceedings are used by some of the systems as a different path to imposing a state reaction upon wrong-doers.

When the Line is Crossed... : Paths to Control and Sanction Behaviour Necessitating a State Reaction

The article presents a special form of a European comparative synopsis. For this case examples have been chosen ranging from administrative or minor (criminal) offences to increasingly serious offences and offenders. In this way it can be comparatively demonstrated how the criminal justice systems studied handle specific cases and whether they do so in a similar or different way.

Scientific Evidence in Europe : Admissibility, Evaluation and Equality of Arms

This study was commissioned by the European Committee on Crime Problems at the Council of Europe to describe and discuss the standards used to asses the admissibility and appraisal of scientific evidence in various member countries. After documenting cases in which faulty forensic evidence seems to have played a critical role, the authors describe the legal foundations of the issues of admissibility and assessment of the probative value in the field of scientific evidence, contrasting criminal justice systems of accusatorial and inquisitorial tradition and the various risks that they pose in terms of equality of arms. Special attention is given to communication issues between lawyers and scientific experts. The authors eventually investigate possible ways of improving the system. Among these mechanisms, emphasis is put on the adoption of a common terminology for expressing the weight of evidence. It is also proposed to adopt an harmonized interpretation framework among forensic experts rooted in good practices of logical inference.

Forensic science and the paradigm of quality

Due to various contexts and processes, forensic science communities may have different approaches, largely influenced by their criminal justice systems. However, forensic science practices share some common characteristics. One is the assurance of a high (scientific) quality within processes and practices. For most crime laboratory directors and forensic science associations, this issue is conditioned by the triangle of quality, which represents the current paradigm of quality assurance in the field. It consists of the implementation of standardization, certification, accreditation, and an evaluation process. It constitutes a clear and sound way to exchange data between laboratories and enables databasing due to standardized methods ensuring reliable and valid results; but it is also a means of defining minimum requirements for practitioners' skills for specific forensic science activities. The control of each of these aspects offers non-forensic science partners the assurance that the entire process has been mastered and is trustworthy. Most of the standards focus on the analysis stage and do not consider pre- and post-laboratory stages, namely, the work achieved at the investigation scene and the evaluation and interpretation of the results, intended for intelligence beneficiaries or for court. Such localized consideration prevents forensic practitioners from identifying where the problems really lie with regard to criminal justice systems. According to a performance-management approach, scientific quality should not be restricted to standardized procedures and controls in forensic science practice. Ensuring high quality also strongly depends on the way a forensic science culture is assimilated (into specific education training and workplaces) and in the way practitioners understand forensic science as a whole.

Les Neurosciences au Tribunal: de la responsabilité à la dangerosité

In recent years, an explosion of interest in neuroscience has led to the development of "Neuro-law," a new multidisciplinary field of knowledge whose aim is to examine the impact and role of neuroscientific findings in legal proceedings. Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in US and European courts in criminal trials, as part of psychiatric testimony, nourishing the debate about the legal implications of brain research in psychiatric-legal settings. During these proceedings, the role of forensic psychiatrists is crucial. In most criminal justice systems, their mission consists in accomplishing two basic tasks: assessing the degree of responsibility of the offender and evaluating their future dangerousness. In the first part of our research, we aim to examine the impact of Neuroscientific evidence in the assessment of criminal responsibility, a key concept of law. An initial jurisprudential research leads to conclude that there are significant difficulties and limitations in using neuroscience for the assessment of criminal responsibility. In the current socio-legal context, responsibility assessments are progressively being weakened, whereas dangerousness assessments gain increasing importance in the field of forensic psychiatry. In the second part of our research we concentrate on the impact of using neuroscience for the assessment of dangerousness. We argue that in the current policy era of zero tolerance, judges, confronted with the pressure to ensure public security, may tend to interpret neuroscientific knowledge and data as an objective and reliable way of evaluating one's dangerousness and risk of reoffending, rather than their responsibility. This tendency could be encouraged by a utilitarian approach to punishment, advanced by some recent neuroscientific research which puts into question the existence of free will and responsibility and argues for a rejection of the retributive theory of punishment. Although this shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favor of a consequentialist approach to criminal law is advanced by some authors as a more progressive and humane approach, we believe that it could lead to the instrumentalisation of neuroscience in the interest of public safety, which can run against the proper exercise of justice and civil liberties of the offenders. By advancing a criminal law regime animated by the consequentialist aim of avoiding social harms through rehabilitation, neuroscience promotes a return to a therapeutical approach to crime which can have serious impact on the kind and the length of sentences imposed on the offenders; if neuroscientific data are interpreted as evidence of dangerousness, rather than responsibility, it is highly likely that judges impose heavier sentences, or/and security measures (in civil law systems), which can be indeterminate in length. Errors and epistemic traps of past criminological movements trying to explain the manifestation of a violent and deviant behavior on a biological and deterministic basis stress the need for caution concerning the use of modern neuroscientific methods in criminal proceedings.

New roles for community pharmacists in modern health care systems: a challenge for pharmacy education and research.

The academic activities led by the Unit of Community Pharmacy can be classified as translational. Our group is interested in person-centered pharmaceutical services aimed at a more responsible use of drugs (effectiveness, safety, efficiency) in collaboration with physicians and other health care professionals in a primary care setting. The following domains of education and research are high priorities for our group: medication therapy management, medication adherence, integrated care, individualization of therapies, care management for the elderly and e-health.