Extending the golden thread? Criminalisation and the presumption of innocence

It seems to be widely accepted that the presumption of innocence, and the attendant standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' properly apply in the courtroom as a procedural principle directly grounded in the moral imperative to avoid punishing those who should not be punished. In this article I argue that if this is correct, then we ought be as careful about what we criminalise, as we are about who we punish, since people can be wrongfully punished by criminalisation errors as well as by conviction errors.

Could the presumption of innocence protect the guilty?

At criminal trial, we demand that those accused of criminal wrongdoing be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. What are the moral and/or political grounds of this demand? One popular and natural answer to this question focuses on the moral badness or wrongness of convicting and punishing innocent persons, which I call the direct moral grounding. In this essay, I suggest that this direct moral grounding, if accepted, may well have important ramifications for other areas of the criminal justice process, and in particular those parts in which we (through our legislatures and judges) decide how much punishment to distribute to guilty persons. If, as the direct moral grounding suggests, we should prefer under-punishment to over-punishment under conditions of uncertainty, due to the moral seriousness of errors which inappropriately punish persons, then we should also prefer erring on the side of under-punishment when considering how much to punish those who may justly be punished. Some objections to this line of thinking are considered.

The Application of a Pluralist Approach of Global Administrative Law on the Governance of Doping in Sport

Plusieurs problèmes liés à l'utilisation de substances et méthodes interdites de dopage dans les sports posent de grands défis à la gouvernance antidopage. Afin de lutter contre le dopage, certains pays ont mis en oeuvre des cadres juridiques basés exclusivement sur le droit pénal tandis que d'autres pays ont plutôt misé sur des mécanismes et organismes spécialisés trouvant fondement en droit privé ou sur un régime hybride de droit public et privé. Ces différentes approches réglementaires ont pour conséquence de faire en sorte qu’il est très difficile de lutter efficacement contre le dopage dans les sports, notamment parce que leur exécution requiert un degré de collaboration internationale et une participation concertée des autorités publiques qui est difficile à mettre en place. À l’heure actuelle, on peut par exemple observer que les États n’arrivent pas à contrer efficacement la participation des syndicats et organisations transnationales liés au crime organisé dans le marché du dopage, ni à éliminer des substances et méthodes de dopage interdites par la réglementation. Par ailleurs, la gouvernance antidopage basée sur les règles prescrites par l’Agence mondiale antidopage prévoit des règles et des normes distinctes de dopage distinguant entre deux catégories de personnes, les athlètes et les autres, plaçant ainsi les premiers dans une position désavantageuse. Par exemple, le standard de responsabilité stricte sans faute ou négligence imposé aux athlètes exige moins que la preuve hors de tout doute raisonnable et permet l'utilisation de preuves circonstancielles pour établir la violation des règles antidopages. S'appliquant pour prouver le dopage, ce standard mine le principe de la présomption d'innocence et le principe suivant lequel une personne ne devrait pas se voir imposer une peine sans loi. D’ailleurs, le nouveau Code de 2015 de l’Agence attribuera aux organisations nationales antidopage (ONADs) des pouvoirs d'enquête et de collecte de renseignements et ajoutera de nouvelles catégories de dopage non-analytiques, réduisant encore plus les droits des athlètes. Dans cette thèse, nous discutons plus particulièrement du régime réglementaire de l’Agence et fondé sur le droit privé parce qu’il ne parvient pas à répondre aux besoins actuels de gouvernance mondiale antidopage. Nous préconisons donc l’adoption d’une nouvelle approche de gouvernance antidopage où la nature publique et pénale mondiale du dopage est clairement reconnue. Cette reconnaissance combiné avec un modèle de gouvernance adapté basé sur une approche pluraliste du droit administratif global produira une réglementation et une administration antidopage mieux acceptée chez les athlètes et plus efficace sur le plan des résultats. Le nouveau modèle de gouvernance que nous proposons nécessitera toutefois que tous les acteurs étatiques et non-étatiques ajustent leur cadre de gouvernance en tenant compte de cette nouvelle approche, et ce, afin de confronter les défis actuels et de régler de manière plus satisfaisante les problèmes liés à la gouvernance mondiale du dopage dans les sports.

New Standards of Justice: Uncovering Motivations for Mexico’s Recent Judicial Reforms amid a Security Crisis

From the introduction: Mexico is in a state of siege. In recent years, organized crime and drug-related violence have escalated dramatically, taking innocent lives and leaving the country mired in bloodshed. The Mexican government, under the leadership of President Felipe Calderón, has responded in part by significantly extending the reach of its security operations, deploying thousands of federal police officers and military troops to combat the activities of drug cartels, and collaborating with the United States on an extensive regional security plan known as the Mérida Initiative. In the midst of the security crisis, however, the government has somewhat paradoxically adopted judicial reforms that protect human rights and civil liberties rather than erode them, specifically the presumption of innocence standard in criminal proceedings and the implementation of oral trials. Assuming that the new laws on the books will be applied in practice, these reforms represent an important commitment on the part of the government to uphold human rights and civil liberties. This is in stark contrast to the infamous judicial reforms in Colombia—the institutionalization of anonymous or “faceless” prosecutions in special courts—implemented after a surge in leftist and cartel brutality, and the murders of several prominent public and judicial officials in the 1980s.

Missing Emigrants : Gleanings from Petitions Presented under the Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Acts

Peer reviewed

Songs of innocence /

Mode of access: Internet.

The gamesters: or, Ruins of innocence. An original novel, founded in truth.

Published also under title: Conrade, or The gamesters. London, 1806.

Joint purchasers and the presumption of joint beneficial ownership:a matter of informed choice?

This paper examines the ruling of Jones v Kernott and shows the results of an empirical survey of conveyancing solicitors and their practices where so affected by the ruling. In particular the paper considers how conveyancing practitioners deal with the issue of organising trusts of land and giving advice to clients in relation to the co-purchase of land.

Portucorruptgal, SA e os 43

Bem, recordamos que, salvaguardando a presunção de inocência em relação a eventuais crimes como a fraude fiscal qualificada e/ou o branqueamento de capitais, entre outras especiarias, o art. 11º do Código Penal é claro (apesar da controversa constitucionalidade): “8 - A cisão e a fusão não determinam a extinção da responsabilidade criminal da pessoa colectiva ou entidade equiparada, respondendo pela prática do crime: § a) A pessoa colectiva ou entidade equiparada em que a fusão se tiver efectivado; e § b) As pessoas colectivas ou entidades equiparadas que resultaram da cisão; Abstract: Well, remember that, safeguarding the presumption of innocence in relation to possible crimes such as qualified tax fraud and / or money laundering, among other spices, art. 11 of the Criminal Code is clear (despite the controversial constitutionality): "8 - The split and the merger does not determine the extinction of criminal liability of the legal person or related entity, accounting for the crime: § a) The legal person or related entity where the merger has effected; and § b) A legal entity or related entities resulting from the split.

Os Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo e o Estado-de-Direito Social Democrático

...mas temos mais respeito ainda pela Liberdade, pelos Princípios Constitucionais como são a Presunção de Inocência e o Princípio da Legalidade Criminal ou o Princípio da Culpa, entre outras conquistas do Ser Humano ao longo de milénios. § Abstract: ... but we have more respect even for Freedom, the Constitutional Principles as are the Presumption of Innocence and the Principle of Criminal Legal or the Principle of Guilt, among other achievements of the human being over millennia.