Correction to: Forensic medical reporting of non-fatal injuries in criminal cases in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods analysis of regional practices.

Non-fatal physical injuries are common in criminal cases, and their accurate documentation and interpretation are crucial for legal proceedings. In the Netherlands, forensic doctors provide independent injury reports that range from basic injury descriptions to translations of medical information into lay terms and comprehensive expert analysis. However, prior research indicates that these reports are often absent in court cases, despite their recognized importance-particularly in serious crimes and domestic violence cases. The reasons for this limited availability remain largely unclear.This study examined the extent and consistency of forensic medical reporting of non-fatal injuries in adults in the Netherlands, identified regional disparities in forensic medical practices, and explored barriers affecting report availability in criminal cases. A mixed-method approach was used, combining a national survey of forensic medical departments with an analysis of injury reports from 2018 to 2022. Findings reveal substantial regional differences in investigation methods, reporting standards, and the number of reports produced. Variations were linked to the lack of requesting protocols, unclear case definitions for forensic doctor involvement, and capacity constraints. The roles of treating physicians, police, and victims in documenting injuries were also not clearly defined. To ensure equitable access to forensic medical expertise within the criminal justice system, this study recommends national standardization, clearer case prioritization for forensic medical involvement, enhanced collaboration, and enhanced forensic training for treating physicians.

Public prosecutors' perspectives on forensic medical information in non-fatal injury cases in the Netherlands: practices, barriers and recommendations.

Reviewed by: Who Judges? Designing Jury Systems in Japan, East Asia, and Europe by Rieko Kage Hiroshi Fukurai (bio) Who Judges? Designing Jury Systems in Japan, East Asia, and Europe. By Rieko Kage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017. xiv, 264 pages. $99.99, cloth; $29.99, paper; $24.00, E-book. This book is an extremely valuable addition to global jury studies and makes a significant contribution to the sociopolitical analysis of varied democratic systems of citizen participation in criminal justice proceedings. The author focuses on the lay participation systems that have been adopted, or are in the process of being introduced, in four countries: Japan, Korea, and Taiwan in Asia, and Spain in Europe. The main analysis concerns the adoption of Japan's saiban-in seido (a quasi-jury trial or mixed tribunal). The author considers an array of political science theories and derives theoretically informed hypotheses, carefully testing them through a masterful use of mixed-method analysis. The testable propositions are drawn from, and guided by, political theories of democratization, conscription, taxation, and delegation. Other political science theories and perspectives are introduced to explain the significance of adopting varied forms of popular participation in criminal trials, such as the path-dependent theory devised by Paul Pierson and the principal-agent literature on delegation, as well as political insurance theory. Also included are excellent comparative case studies related to the theoretical propositions of "new left" politics and partisan dynamics and their influence on the introduction of the jury and lay judge systems in these four countries. There are ten independent chapters, each one carefully researched and containing thoughtful analysis. Chapter 1 offers an overview of the comparative theoretical framework of the studies undertaken by the author, arguing that the relative strength of "new left" political factors has shaped not only the character of debates on the possibility of popular participation in justice systems but also the design and structural matrix of the lay participation program in criminal trials. Chapter 2 sketches out the novel theoretical framework of "new left" partisan politics in relation to efforts to impose [End Page 448] stronger constraints upon bureaucratic professional judges in advanced democracies such as Japan and "postdevelopmental" states such as Spain, Korea, and Taiwan. Chapter 3 turns to an empirical analysis of the influence of "new left" partisan politics on efforts to introduce popular participation in criminal trials. Drawing on the multitudinous data from the Comparative Manifesto Project and other available sources, the author convincingly demonstrates that "new left" oriented parties are more likely to take up leftist concerns and policy issues, including the adoption of popular participation in criminal adjudication. Chapters 4 and 5 examine the history of lay participation debates in Japan, with chapter 4 providing a content analysis of the partisan debates between 1947 and 1996, noting that unique events such as four wrongful conviction cases scrutinized by the Japanese Supreme Court led to sudden spikes in media and public concern about the legitimacy of Japan's traditional bench trial system and of the decisions reached under that system. This public scrutiny also led to greater partisan debates on significant judicial reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Chapter 5 specifically examines partisan dynamics around the millennial period from 1997 to 2004, when a governmental consensus emerged from the Justice System Reform Council (JSRC, Shihō Seido Kaikaku Shingikai), whose final recommendation included the establishment of the mixed, professional, and lay judge panel to adjudicate serious criminal cases. More than 60 JSRC public panel discussions were held in many parts of Japan; these allowed maximum input from public interest groups to influence the content and spectrum of lay participation debates and discussions. Chapter 6 moves on to test the theoretically driven hypotheses based on records of debates in both houses of the Japanese Diet, demonstrating that "new left" partisan agendas influenced the deliberation in the Japanese Diet over the establishment of the JSRC in 1999. Chapter 7 focuses on Taiwan's proposal for lay participation, followed by chapter 8's coverage of studies of party politics in relation to the introduction of the jury system in Spain and South Korea. The empirical analysis of the varied impact of popular...

This study makes a seminal contribution to the evolution of court statistics as one of the first to propose a comprehensive set of case classification categories and associated theoretical and mathematical rules of case counting. The study is based on a three-year mixed-methods analysis into the criminal and civil case processes in the Jamaican court system. From this investigation, it proposes the use of six case status states - active, inactive, reopened, reactivated, pending/pre-judicial filings, and disposed. These classifications can be used to seamlessly organize cases and their constituent matters in a manner that avoids the common problems of miscounting, misclassification, and double counting of cases in many judiciaries around the world. The study further proposes the logic which may be applied in counting and arranging cases and their associated matters into the set of main, mutually exclusive classification categories of active, inactive, disposed, and pending/pre-judicial filings. Taken together, the findings of the study create the basis for court systems to collect and maintain reliable judicial statistics and to therefore make better decisions in planning and policy design and to more effectively marshal scarce resources.

The rapid adoption of digital forensics in Muslim jurisdictions poses doctrinal and procedural dilemmas for the enforcement of hudud, the fixed punishments regulated by Islamic criminal law. Although classical jurists demanded near-absolute certainty, statutes now admit blockchain logs, DNA profiles, and geolocation data whose epistemic status is contested. This study investigates whether authenticated digital evidence, evaluated through a maqāṣid-aligned reliability matrix, preserves both procedural fairness and the deterrent mission of hudud. A convergent mixed-methods design combined doctrinal analysis with empirical testing of 210 criminal case files from Malaysia, Aceh, and Saudi Arabia (2015-2024). Reliability indices were computed for five evidence types; Bayesian updating estimated posterior guilt probabilities; interviews with 67 justice actors contextualised findings; cost–benefit metrics assessed restorative settlements. DNA profiles (mean RI = 0.91) and blockchain logs (0.87) achieved high evidentiary reliability, producing shubha deflection rates below 10 %. Geolocation data (0.74) and digital confessions (0.79) generated significantly higher doubt and conversion to taʿzīr. Restorative settlements delivered cost–benefit ratios above 1.1 and victim-satisfaction scores exceeding 78/100, particularly in Aceh, were digital monitoring enhanced compliance. Jurisdictions employing multidisciplinary verification panels recorded wrongful-conviction reversals below 4 %. The findings demonstrate that modern forensic artefacts can coexist with classical proof doctrines when governed by transparent authentication and probabilistic evaluation. Implementing a maqāṣid-based reliability matrix offers courts a principled route to align divine mandates, technological progress, and human-rights safeguards, thereby modernising Islamic criminal justice without compromising its ethical foundations, in diverse contexts worldwide.