英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

评估取消制度或者保留制度的辩论

论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-10-03编辑:zcm84984点击率:5169

论文字数:5955论文编号:org201409281320035540语种:英语论文 English地区:英国价格:免费论文

关键词:保留制度Law Essay取消制度逻辑推敲

摘要:本文是旨在变量评估取消制度或者保留制度的辩论,增乳艾礼富文德尔福尔摩斯所说:“历史的篇章是值得用逻辑推敲的。对历史的回顾保持沉默的权利,在不同的时间点上拥有的这一特权,应该对该位置提供一些观点。”拉丁词“‘nemo tenetur prodere seipsum”意味着追溯到罗马时代,没有人能够在公共场所背叛他自己。

法律学论文


增乳艾礼富文德尔福尔摩斯所说:“历史的篇章是值得用逻辑推敲的。对历史的回顾保持沉默的权利,在不同的时间点上拥有的这一特权,应该对该位置提供一些观点。”拉丁词“‘nemo tenetur prodere seipsum”意味着追溯到罗马时代,没有人能够在公共场所背叛他自己。这现实了特权不仅仅是属于某个人的权利,更是一个对于过分热心的官员的检查。[2]结果是,只有当拥有充分的理由去怀疑一个人已经违反法律了,它才会被人们要求回答不利的问题。[3]直至16世纪,已经开始出现了清晰的准则定义礼貌,星室的英国教会法院和高等委员会,[4]他们已经实行了一些惯例,强迫嫌疑犯实行一种称为“前officio誓言”的宣誓词,被告人不得不回答法官和检察官提出的问题,甚至都没有人正式质控他。如果一个人拒绝宣誓,他可能会被折磨。这些星室和委员会后来被取消了。[5]


As Oliver Wendell Holmes remarked “a page of history is worth a volume of logic. A review of the history of the right to remain silent shall provide some perspectives to the position regarding this privilege at various points of time. The Latin phrase ‘nemo tenetur prodere seipsum' meaning that no person shall betray himself in public dates back to Roman times. It appears that the privilege more than being a right to anyone, was more of a check on overzealous officials. [2] Consequently, only when there was a good reason to suspect that a person had violated the law would it be required by the person to answer incriminating questions. [3] By 16th century, clear statements of principle emerged courtesy, the ecclesiastical English Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission [4] which had developed the practice of compelling suspects to take an oath known as the “ex-officio oath” and, the accused had to answer questions, without even a

formal charge, put by the judge and the prosecutor. If a person refused to take oath, he could be tortured. These Star Chambers and Commissions were later abolished [5] .

After the abolition of these courts, the accused was not required or even allowed to take the oath. However, the practice of that time did not allow the accused to be represented by a lawyer. The accused had to speak for himself. [6] Consequently, as the system of advocacy and lawyering developed concomitantly with the law of evidence and criminal jurisprudence the privilege against self-incrimination developed as a protection of criminal defendants in common law.

Right to Silence – Abolition or Retention debate

Right to silence has been in a quandary from the time it was incorporated into the substantive law. Jeremy Bentham has been one of the foremost critics of the right to silence. He commented, “ Innocence never takes advantage of it (right to silence), Innocence claims to the right of speaking, as guilt invokes the privilege of silence”. [7] He stated that right to silence excludes possibly, the most reliable evidence i.e the evidence from the accused. [8] This necessarily forced the Courts to rely upon other inferior sort of evidence and hearsay that influenced the outcome of the trial. He further argued that this privilege had the inevitable effect of hindering the process of discovering the truth. [9] Though his criticisms did not prevent the privilege from developing to its current form, his criticism has had long-term effects as forming the basis for many arguments supporting restrictions on the right in many jurisdictions.

Judge Zupancic, Judge of European Court of Human Rights too, shares the view of Bentham that right to silence often excludes the most reliable evidence and inevitably throws a spanner into the juridical process and administration of justice. Judge Zupancic actually goes on to suggest that it is absurd to justify the right to silence as a means to protect to self-incrimination and in the nam论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。

共 1/11 页首页上一页1234567下一页尾页

英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非

   Europe (24-hours)
   EN:13917206902
   china (24-hours)
   CN:13917206902
在线客服团队
    全天候24小时在线客服
      QQ:949925041 
  

微信公众订阅号