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:17133
论文字数:5955论文编号:org201409281320035540语种:英语 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
本论文由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。