Legal Errors Research Articles

Crime, Punishment, and Legal Error: A Review of the Experimental Literature

When individuals violate the law, detection and verification of the violation are rarely, if ever, perfect. Before the state can dole out punishment, it must first identify a suspect and then produce sufficient evidence to persuade a judge and/or jury beyond some threshold level of confidence that the suspect, in fact, violated the law. The court might be uncertain that the state has the right person. If the suspect is undoubtedly the one who caused the harm, the court might be unsure about whether his act constitutes a violation of the law (e.g., whether the suspect was, in fact, speeding). The state, given the level of resources allocated to law enforcement, might not be able to produce a suspect. Limitations on enforcement resources lead to imperfect detection. Evidence production and proof problems cause both mistaken convictions and mistaken acquittals. Errors have many sources, including hindsight bias, lack of complete information about the defendant’s possible options and chosen action, untrustworthy eyewitness testimony, the admission of impartial evidence in trials, and unwillingness or inability to expend resources on detection, among others. We focus here not on the sources of errors, but rather on their effects on deterrence and punishment policy. Our purpose is to briefly summarize the theoretical literature that studies the effects of legal errors on crime and punishment rates, and to critically review studies that report on experiments conducted to test such theories. The theoretical literature includes analyses of both criminal law and civil law violations, and so we cover both here. Part 2 summarizes theories offered to explain and predict how imperfect detection and guilt-determination errors affect crime and punishment rates. Part 3 summaries, synthesizes and critiques experimental studies designed to test the theories. Part 4 catalogs, in broad terms, where we are and offers ideas for potentially fruitful avenues for continued exploration in the lab.

Protecting Vulnerable Refugees: Procedural Fairness in the Australian Fast Track Regime

Refugee Status Determination is a powerful example of the way in which vulnerability and the law interact. This article examines this interaction by analysing a case study: the special protection visa application procedure in place for certain asylum seekers in Australia (the ‘Fast Track Assessment’ process) and the implications of this for procedural fairness. We conclude that the current legislative framework for the Fast Track Assessment process operates to exacerbate the circumstances of vulnerability of asylum seekers. Efficiency measures are an important way of avoiding delays in decision-making. However it also increases the propensity of such measures to lead to serious legal errors. Considering the serious consequences of an improperly made decision in this context, we argue that high standards of procedural fairness and an oral hearing are required. The article also demonstrates that a central purpose of due process should be to mitigate (rather than exacerbate) circumstances of vulnerability or marginalisation.

Does the Appeals Process Reduce the Occurrence of Legal Errors?

Abstract This paper challenges the commonly held belief that the appeals process reduces the occurrence of legal errors. We show that, although the right to file an appeal or request adjudication offers an opportunity to correct mistakes made at trial, the final impact of the appeals process on the accuracy of judicial decisions is not always desirable because of its effects on the trial court decision-maker’s effort and on deterrence. In particular, we find that if (i) the trial court decision-maker is more concerned with legal errors than with her reputation, (ii) few potential offenders attribute high benefits to committing harmful acts and (iii) the additional effort exerted by the decision-maker has a stronger impact on wrongful acquittals than on wrongful convictions, then the implementation of an appeals process may spur a decision-maker to reduce her effort and may thus be detrimental to the quality of judicial output.

LEGAL ERRORS: THEORETICAL AND LEGAL RESEARCH

The article is devoted to the scientific analysis of the theoretical interpretation of the essence and content of a legal error as a category of general theoretical jurisprudence. Common signs and types of legal errors, subjective and objective factors of their occurrence are determined, as well as the grounds for the error of the subject of law.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ROMANIA NO. 2/2017 ON THE EXTRAORDINARY APPEAL PATH OF THE REVIEW

The central element of this extraordinary appeal is the judicial error. The review involves finding a legal error in the criminal case settled by a final judgment, which was based on an erroneous assessment of the state of affairs. Exercising appeals does not create a new procedural report, but only extends the initial report in this new procedural phase. In our judicial system, the unanimous classification is that appeals are divided into two categories: ordinary ways and extraordinary ways. Thus, before the decision, the case under Article 453 (1) (a) could be invoked as a ground for review only in favor of the convicted person or of the one to whom the waiver of the punishment or deferment of the punishment or termination of the criminal proceedings, if the review is aimed at obtaining an acquittal. Therefore, this case of revision could not be used to the detriment of the person who was acquitted or who was ordered to terminate the criminal proceedings, with the aim of reaching a decision on conviction, renunciation of the punishment or postponement of the application punishment.

Imprecision's Terrible Toll: When Hospitals in Ohio Sue to Collect from Their Patients, Often the Loser is the Rule of Law

This article argues that the law of medical bill collections in Ohio has gone seriously awry. After explaining why the reasonable value of services rendered must be proven by the plaintiff, and how it is to be proven, the article then demonstrates that the arguments commonly put forward by hospitals, when they move for summary judgment without evidence of reasonable value, are replete with legal error. A series of recent Ohio appellate cases are analyzed, showing that the courts have fallen into those errors instead of correcting them. The article concludes by suggesting a strategy for patients’ attorneys, armed with the analysis offered here, to secure favorable settlements for their clients, at least until the law begins to be set right again in the state’s appellate courts.

Dworcules, Jewish Law, and the Doctrine of Legal Error

The paper presents the main tenets of Dworkin’s theory of law, focusing primarily on his notion of error, and argues that it differs substantially from that of Jewish Law, rendering Dworkin’s theory of law inapplicable to Jewish law.

The PoET (Prevention of Error-Based Transfers) Project.

The PoET (Prevention of Error-based Transfers) Project is one of the Ethics Quality Improvement Projects (EQIPs) taking place at William Osler Health System. This specific project is designed to reduce transfers from long-term care to hospital that are caused by legal and ethical errors related to consent, capacity and substitute decision-making. The project is currently operating in eight long-term care homes in the Central West Local Health Integration Network and has seen a 56% reduction in multiple transfers before death in hospital.

Legislative agenda setting by a delegative democracy: omnibus bills in the Turkish parliamentary system

ABSTRACTThis article examines the political motives and legislative consequences of Turkish omnibus bills that propose to amend a large number of disparate, unrelated laws. The quantitative analysis reveals, first, that the government uses omnibus bills to covertly change existing laws by attaching new articles to bills that are being deliberated. Second, undercover legislation backfires. The larger the number of current laws changed by an omnibus bill, the more likely those changes are to be annulled by the Constitutional Court. The legislative-efficiency objective behind omnibus bills is thus undermined by legal errors and deficiencies that result from a lack of parliamentary discussion.

Criteria, procedure and evaluation of results of dissertational researches on the theory and history of law, government and jurisprudence in Russia (1802-2014)

The preliminary results of the research, development gaps, status, problems, statistics, and legal errors in relation to the criteria, procedure and evaluation of results of dissertational researches on the theory and history of law state and legal science in Russia in the period from 1802 to 2014. Formulate intended new proposals for replenishment and change of legal regulations, re-pulirula procedure for evaluating the dissertation research and the sweet-tions.

The Appeals Process in the European Commission's Cartel Cases: An Empirical Assessment

The appeals process is an important mechanism to correct legal errors and to improve existing laws and regulations. We use the data of 467 firm groups that participated in 88 cartels convicted by the European Commission between 2000 and 2012 to study both the characteristics of firm groups filing an appeal and the factors that determine their successfulness in terms of fine reduction. Applying a discrete choice and a two-stage hurdle model, we find that while some characteristics—particularly the reform of the fine guidelines—only affect the probability of filing an appeal, other factors, such as the size of the fine imposed, in connection with characteristics such as ringleader, repeat offender, or leniency applicant, influence both the probability and the success of an appeal. We build on these results to derive conclusions for both firms and public policymakers.

Far from the Madding Crowd: A Statutory Solution to Crowd Crush

Crowd-related injuries and deaths occur with surprising frequency in the United States. In recent years, crowd members in the United States have sustained significant injuries and even fatalities at concerts, sporting events, “doorbuster” sales, nightclubs, and large festivals. While some of these incidents have prompted victims to file negligence suits against event organizers and venue owners, common law has proven to be ineffective at addressing “crowd crush.” Indeed, courts have repeatedly held for defendants in these cases, making a series of scientific and legal errors in the process, and providing little incentive for organizers and owners to improve their crowd management practices. Additionally, ad hoc crowd management efforts on the part of a few concerned promoters and venues have done little to reduce the risk of crowd-related injuries in cities and states as a whole. In this paper, I argue that state and local adoption of crowd management statutes is the only remaining solution that can effectively reduce the number of crowd crush injuries and fatalities in the United States each year. Because there are currently no such laws in this country, I propose a model statute that draws upon fundamental principles of crowd science in requiring event organizers and venue owners to take a series of relatively simple steps both in advance and during large gatherings that will drastically reduce the likelihood of crowd crush.

The Legal Technology Mistake and Mistake in Qualifying: Cause and Effect

The scientific article represents the research of the different kinds of mistakes and the reasons and the data of the normative estimations in order to minimize the delinquency activity. The criminal law is the aggregation of the criminally management activity in the cooperation with the practical and the theory data. What often doesn’t represent the deal and the coordination this two groups. It often faces because of the fuzzy law system on Russia and the often changes in it. All of them represent huge ideas in the criminal law research, but I think the idea is not fully researched all signs of a perfect face criminal acts constituting. In connection with the above, it is important to explore the issue of criminal legal error when the wrong person evaluates the legal or factual circumstances of the crime. It should be noted that the problem of errors (in the broad sense, not only the criminal law) is beyond the scope of their study separate science (in particular, criminal law). The study of errors of human behavior pays attention to the different Sciences: psychology, economy, management, sociology, etc. No one is immune from mistakes in their behavior, and only part of the human error falls within the scope of their study of criminal law. The methods using in my dissertation are: the regulation, the compare analysis, statistics, saving. This deteriorates the governance parameters . DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s3p290

Article 293(1) UNCLOS: Not a Grant of Jurisdiction

It is a well-established principle of international law that applicable law provisions do not expand the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals. Nevertheless, UNCLOS tribunals have not uniformly conformed to this principle. In particular, the tribunals in M/V Saiga (No. 2), Guyana v. Suriname, and M/V Virginia G effectively invoked Article 293(1) to expand their jurisdiction. And although the tribunals in MOX Plant, Chagos, Arctic Sunrise, and Duzgit Integrity have stood by the principle, they all failed to recognize the legal error committed by the other three tribunals. This Comment argues that an express refutation of the erroneous jurisprudence is necessary to preserve the legitimacy of UNCLOS proceedings.

Second-Best Stare Decisis

If judges disagree about the proper interpretation of the law, can they find common ground in the treatment of precedent?The doctrine of stare decisis weighs the value of legal continuity against the value of legal accuracy. But that analysis is complicated by pervasive disputes over the implications of legal error. Likewise, the scope of a precedent’s impact in future cases depends on underlying assumptions about the ends and means of legal interpretation. When those assumptions vary among judges, so too will applications of stare decisis.For stare decisis to promote the continuity and impersonality of law, it requires an analytical framework designed not for an idealized world of interpretive consensus, but rather for a second-best world of interpretive pluralism.Second-best stare decisis emphasizes doctrinal factors whose content does not depend on adherence to any particular interpretive methodology. The second-best approach also contemplates structural solutions, such as supermajority voting requirements, for promoting collaboration across methodological lines. Finally, second-best stare decisis pursues compromises that emphasize the common ground among competing schools of interpretation. The result is a reconceptualized doctrine of stare decisis that seeks to transcend interpretive disputes and underscore a court’s status as a unified institution working across time — an institution that is something different, and something greater, than its individual members.

‘More Equitable than the Judgment of the Justices of the Peace’: The King's Bench and the Poor Law 1630–1800

Orders issued by justices operating the poor law in seventeenth and eighteenth century England – orders for removing paupers, orders for the maintenance of bastard children, orders adjudicating poor rate appeals – generated vast quantities of litigation. Most of that litigation was by way of appeal to Quarter Sessions; but a small number of cases went further, to the King's Bench, by way of certiorari. This account examines this litigation phenomenon from several vantage points: from the perspective of the King's Bench (which innovated procedures to regulate certiorari, and which expanded its means of reviewing legal error through the development of the special case); from the perspective of Parliament (which was required to respond to demands by justices that the process be abolished); and from the perspective of contemporary commentators (who were critical of the money wasted by parishes litigating in the King's Bench).

Elimination of legal error in German law

The subject of this paper is inevitability of mistake of law in Criminal Law. In the first part of paper the author analyzes term and the effect of mistake of law in the German criminal law. Furthermore, the theory of premeditation and theory of guilt are analyzed as a theoretical basis for distinguishing the mistake of fact and mistake of law. To the acceptance of the theory of guilt during 70's of last century in German Criminal Law there was no mistake of law as an autonomous institute. It has been pointed out the importance and advantages of the theory of guilt in relation to the theory of premeditation. The author analyzes the relationship between mistake of law and premeditation in case when mistake of law is avoidable. The view that mistake of law regardless it is avoidable or unavoidable is not significant for the existence of premeditation is substantiated. Premeditation is not excluded as the awareness of the unlawfulness is an independent element of guilt, as well as premeditation. This view can not be questioned, because it may happen that the perpetrator with premeditation performs act, but because of unavoidable or avoidable mistake of law did not know that the act is prohibited. The existence of premeditation is not in question; the existence of guilt depends on whether the mistake of law in the particular case is avoidable or unavoidable. Part of this paper refers to the evaluation of criteria by which the German theory and jurisprudence establish whether the mistake of law is avoidable or unavoidable. The prevailing concept according to which the effect of mistake of law depends on three criteria: 1. whether in particular case there was reason for perpetrator to doubt that the act is prohibited; 2. whether there was a real possibility that the perpetrator finds out whether the act is prohibited; 3. whether the perpetrator could have known that the act is prohibited.

The Judiciary and Economic Development

No degree of substantive law improvement can bring the rule of law to a country without effective enforcement, and a sound judiciary is the key to enforcement. Judicial independence and the strength and efficiency of judiciaries are associated with economic growth. Some research finds legal formalism (that is, procedural complexity) undesirable. Though procedural complexity may be a barrier to judicial efficiency, it is also true that some procedural rules are designed to avoid legal error, also surely an aspect of efficiency. In any event, many of the measured differences in formalism between the common law and civil law are related to the far different role of counsel and judge in the two legal systems. Judicial efficiency measured in terms of duration of cases shows an extraordinarily wide variance among countries within individual legal families, suggesting that something at least as significant as legal origin may be involved. The related concepts of separation of powers and of checks and balances are not well-defined, and their meaning varies depending on the country and the objective of the constitutional founders. For economic development the constitutional provisions on review of administrative acts take on special importance. Judicial independence is not just a question of the structural independence of the judiciary within the governmental system, but also of the behavioral independence of individual judges. The latter is based both on law (for example, lifetime tenure) and on the method of appointment of the judiciary, but also on the education, economic security, and place in society of individual judges. Especially noteworthy in this regard is the traditional independence of English judges despite the absence of constitutional structural independence and of any power of judicial review.

Scaled Punishments

This article challenges the principle that punishment is only justified after a defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It proposes instead a system of scaled punishments in which a defendant’s sentence would be proportioned to the jury’s reported confidence level in the defendant’s guilt. The criminal justice system already implements a series of implicit scaled punishments in the form of plea bargains. This article defends the counterintuitive conclusion that a system of explicit scaled punishments would better satisfy the aims of retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence that we take to legitimate punishment. A system of scaled punishments would smooth out the moral discontinuity that our binary verdict structure creates. It would more precisely align the collateral consequences of criminal adjudications with the risk each criminal defendant poses. It would better distribute the costs of legal error. Paradoxically, a system of scaled punishments would likely reduce net incarceration in the United States. Factual uncertainty is pervasive in criminal law, and a system of scaled punishments would respond to uncertainty more rationally.

Gastos pre operativos en la Ley del Impuesto a la Renta: Alcances y controversias

En el presente artículo Guillermo Hidalgo y Cynthia Aldazábal comentan la deducción de los gastos pre operativos en la Ley del Impuesto a la Renta. En este se encontrarán las principales vacíos, errores y controversias presentes.