Presumption Of Guilt Research Articles

Biosimilars: presumption of guilt

Some chronic systemic diseases, including diabetes mellitus, require the life-long use of biotechnological medical products, of which quality,effectiveness and safety depends the duration and quality of life for patients.Patent protection expiry of many original biological agents has assumed the key role in development of biosimilars (replica versions of originalbiotechnological products) and their broad entrance to the pharmaceutical market. Because of structural complexity of biological products andimpossibility of precise reproduction of patented processing, biosimilars are not ideal duplicates of original substances. Despite numerous evidence oftherapeutic nonequivalence, danger of mechanical substitution of original agents still exists in Russia due to lower price of biosimilars - and lackof legislative acts, regulating registration and circulation of such drugs.In this article we characterize biosimilars in great detail and review major problems of their use, that is: aspects of quality control; disparity withoriginal bio-agents in efficacy and safety; clinical trial requirements, registration procedures and subsequent safety control.

The Fifth Amendment: Right or Privilege?

“No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” These words from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America give to all Americans the right to refuse to testify against themselves in a court of law. This right to silence is the result of long and heroic struggles on the part of many people over the course of hundreds of years.But despite the fact that this right is hard won, and despite the fact that it comes down to us from such a long time ago, many excellent thinkers, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, have questioned its wisdom. Despite the fact that it is guaranteed by our Constitution, and is part of the Bill of Rights, it has been traditional since the beginning of this century to refer to it as the privilege against self-incrimination. Yet at the same time that the judiciary was referring to the right to silence in this unprecedented manner, it consistently expanded the right to a position of prominence in our justice system.The right to silence also has a unique place in our language. To take the Fifth is a cliche that has become synonymous with guilty evasion. The Fifth Amendment is the only right we have that has given rise to such a phrase, and it is one of most well known rights in the Constitution, second only to the first. With the invocation of the Fifth Amendment goes a presumption of guilt, and even where the law specifically requires jurors not to consider refusal to testify as an indication of guilt, the vast majority who invoke the right are found guilty.During the 1950s when many communists, communist sympathizers, and others found it convenient to invoke the Fifth Amendment during congressional hearings, the right to silence became a popular political issue. Many people, mostly conservatives, argued against the legitimacy of a right to silence, and those who argued for the right found that the traditional arguments in its favor were not very strong. Generally, when an argument for a right to silence was advanced in the case of self-incriminating testimony, it was found to apply equally well to all testimony.The question has once again lost immediate political relevancy, but still remains: Is the right to silence as guaranteed by our Constitution a legitimate right, or is it merely a privilege granted to American citizens, but a liberty that we could do without? This paper will attempt to answer that question by reviewing the traditional arguments for a right to silence and then presenting an original argument for the right that seeks to avoid the problem of proving a complete right to silence rather than just a right in the case of self-incriminating evidence.

Presumption of Guilt

Presumption of Guilt

The presumption of guilt: the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and race, class, and crime in America

The presumption of guilt: the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and race, class, and crime in America

Unkept Promises: 'Law on the Books' and High Risk Populations in Thailand

This assessment reviewed and analyzed Thai law relevant to injection drug use by examining laws concerning drug control, drug use, access to health care and privacy of medical information. It identifies and reproduces relevant sections on the constitution, statutes passed by the national, regional or local legislature, administrative regulations with the force of law and relevant decisions interpreting these laws or regulations.The assessment finds that Thai law criminalizes the possession of extremely minor amounts of drugs, forcing users to carry very small quantities and ultimately leading to difficulty in drug users attaining “highs” through less hazardous methods of administration such as oral intake and encouraging a shift to riskier methods, particularly injecting drug use. The penal regime under the Thai narcotics laws and related enactments prescribes severe punishments, makes all offences under it cognizable and non-bailable, and also gives wide powers of search, seizure, and arrest to the police.Further, under the existing narcotics law, there is a presumption of guilt against the possessor of any drugs or apparatus for the manufacture of any drugs. The penal regime also makes any attempt or abetment punishable with the same severity as if the offense was actually committed. This review reports and analyzes these laws, together with recent amendments that recommend a less punitive drug control regime.

Moral regulation and the presumption of guilt in Health Canada's medical cannabis policy and practice

This paper is a sociological examination of policies and practices in Health Canada's Marihuana Medical Access Division (MMAD) that presume the illicit intentions and inherent “guilt” of medical cannabis users, hampering safe access to a medicine to which many are legally entitled, and raising doubts about this federal programme's overall effectiveness and constitutional legitimacy. Beginning with a brief historical overview of Canada's federal medical cannabis programme, this paper examines the failure of the MMAD to meet the needs of many sick and suffering Canadians through Hunt's [Hunt, A. (1999). Governing morals: A social history of moral regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press] work on moral regulation and Wodak's [Wodak, A. (2007). Ethics and drug policy. Psychiatry, 6(2), 59–62] critique of “deontological” drug policy strategies. I then cite Tupper's [Tupper, K. W. (2007). The globalization of ayahuasca: Harm reduction or benefit maximization? International Journal of Drug Policy, doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.11.001] argument that shifting to a generative metaphor that constructs certain entheogenic substances as potentially useful “tools” rather than regulating them through inherently moralistic prohibitionist policies would better serve public health, and incorporate Young's [Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press] theories of domination and oppression to examine the rise of community-base medical cannabis dispensaries as “new social movements”. First-hand accounts by medical cannabis patients, federally funded studies, and internal Health Canada communication and documents suggest that current federal policies and practices are blocking safe access to this herbal medicine. The community-based dispensary model of medical cannabis access is a patient-centered “new social movement” that mitigates the stigmatization and moral regulation of their member-clients by creating opportunities for engagement, empowerment and joint knowledge creation. In light of ongoing Charter challenges and patient criticism, the survival of this federal programme will depend on the government's ability to shift away from policies based on the oppression and moral regulation, and towards consequentialist policies that balance harm reduction and benefit maximization. The effectiveness of such an approach is exemplified by the success of the community-based dispensary model which is currently producing more peer-reviewed research and supplying medical cannabis to a far greater number of patients than Health Canada's Marihuana Medical Access Division.

Keeping out the other: a critical introduction to immigration enforcement today

Foreward: Justice and the Outsider by David ColeAcknowledgmentsList of Abbreviations1. Open Markets, Militarized Borders?: Immigration Enforcement Today (Philip Kretsedemas and David C. Brotherton)Part I: The Expansion of Immigration Enforcement: Before 9/112. Unchecked Power Against Undesirables: Haitians, Mariel Cubans, and Guantanamo (Mark Dow)3. Immigration, Terrorism, and Secret Pirsons (Dan Malone)4. Democracy and Immigration (Ira J. Kurzban)Part II: Noncitizens as Security Threats: After 9/115. Racializing, Criminalizing, and Silencing 9/11 Deportees (Irum Sheikh)6. Presumption of Guilt: September 11 and the Americal Muslim Community (Arsalan Iftikhar)7. American and British Constructions of Asylum Seekers: Moral Panic, Detention, and Human Rights (Michael Welch and Liza Schuster)Part III: From Incarceration to Deportation8. Exiling New Yorkers (David C. Brotherton)9. Invisible Removal, Endless Detention, Limited Relief: A Taste of Immigration Court Representation for Detained Noncitizens (Abira Ashfaq)10. Why Black Immigrants Matter: Refocusing the Discussion on Racism and Immigration Enforcement (Tamara K. Nopper)Part IV: Inside the Immigration Prison Systems: Activist Perspectives11. Rafiu's Story: An American Immigrant Nightmare (Malik Ndaula with Debbie Satyal)12. Familes for Freedom: Against Deportation and Delegalization (Subhash Kateel and Aarti Shahani)Part V: Looking for Illegals13. Bordering the Other in the U.S. Southwest: El Pasoans Confront the Local Sheriff (Kathleen Staudt)14. Framing the Debate on Taxes and Undocumented Workers: A Critical Review of Texts Supporting Proenforcement Policies and Practices (Jorge Capetillo-Ponce)15. What Does an Undocumented Immigrant Look Like?: Local Enforcement and the New Immigrant Profiling (Philip Kretsedemas)Conclusion: Immigration Reform at a Crossroads (Philip Kretsademas and David C. Brotherton)Appendix: An Annotated List of Immigration LawsGlossaryAbout the ContributorsIndex

Fun with onion routing

While the internet has been seen by many as an opportunity to spread information and opinions, censorship and access monitoring have been seen to be gradually increasing in a number of nations. From the great firewall of China to attempts at online interception such as the FBI's Carnivore system, it has seemed that freedom of information on the internet is under threat. In recent years, one particular mechanism has been gaining in popularity both for those escaping censorship and those who resent continual monitoring and a presumption of guilt. This mechanism is onion routing, particularly as used in Tor, a proxy and router-based tool computer users can use on their desktops to achieve uncontrolled, anonymous connectivity to the outside world.

The Presumption of Guilt and the English Law of Theft, 1750–1850

When it is said that a defendant to a criminal charge is presumed to be innocent, what is really meant is that the burden of proving his guilt is upon the prosecution. This golden thread…runs through the web of the English criminal law. Unhappily Parliament regards the principle with indifference—one might almost say with contempt. The statute book contains many offences in which the burden of proving his innocence is cast on the accused.No principle in Anglo-American criminal law is more vaunted than the so-called “presumption of innocence”: the doctrine that the prosecution must bothproduceevidence of guilt andpersuadethe fact-finder “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The claim that “every man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty” has been described as “dear to the hearts of Englishmen” and as an omnipresent feature of English criminal law. In 1895, the United States Supreme Court declared the “presumption of innocence in favor of the accused” to be “the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary”—a protection that “lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Befitting its lofty stature in Anglo-American legal culture, the presumption has become associated, over time, with that most famous of Blackstonean maxims: “[I]t is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

Summary Conviction and the Development of the Penal Law

Bruce Smith's article, “The Presumption of Guilt and the English Law of Theft, 1750–1850,” has a highly intriguing argument. While I do not agree with that argument, it is nonetheless very helpful in identifying questions fundamental to characterization of what Smith terms the “Bloodless Code”—the eighteenth-century laws authorizing summary conviction, laws that, as Smith states, were a striking feature of the Hanoverian legal regime.

The Presumption of Guilt and the English Law of Theft, 1750-1850

When it is said that a defendant to a criminal charge is presumed to be innocent, what is really meant is that burden of proving his guilt is upon prosecution. This golden thread ... runs through web of English criminal Unhappily Parliament regards principle with indifference - one might almost say with contempt. The statute book contains many offences in which burden of proving his innocence is cast on accused. (Glanville Williams, The Proof of Guilt: A Study of English Criminal Trial (1955)) No principle in Anglo-American criminal law is more vaunted than so-called of innocence: doctrine that prosecution must both produce evidence of guilt and persuade fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt. The claim that every man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved has been described as dear to hearts of Englishmen and as an omnipresent feature of English criminal In 1895, United States Supreme Court declared of innocence in favor of accused to be the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary - a protection that lies at foundation of administration of our criminal law. Befitting its lofty stature in Anglo-American legal culture, presumption has become associated, over time, with that most famous of Blackstonean maxims: [I]t is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer. Recently, Allyson May has argued that presumption developed in eighteenth century along with a series of procedural and evidentiary protections benefiting defendants tried at London's Old Bailey, including right to counsel, notion of prosecution's case, and beyond-reasonable-doubt standard of proof. But how robust was presumption of innocence in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century English criminal law? This article argues that many English criminal defendants in late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries did not benefit from a presumption of innocence but, rather, struggled against a statutory presumption of guilt. In starkest cases, defendants labored under a presumption of guilt when charged with violating one of numerous statutes passed by Parliament during eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries designed to combat various forms of misappropriation. Under these statutes, persons detected in possession of goods such as metal, rope, textile materials, or wood who failed to account adequately for their possession could be convicted by magistrates of misdemeanors in proceedings, which dispensed with certain important procedural and evidentiary protections applicable in cases of larceny tried in higher courts. Unfortunately, historians still know comparatively little about summary proceedings - this, despite their critically important role in administration of criminal justice in eighteenth and early nineteenth century England (and beyond). This article advances two principal claims: first, English criminal justice administrators from roughly 1750 to 1850 routinely resorted to summary proceedings in cases of suspected petty theft because of challenges of securing convictions in higher courts for felony of simple larceny; and, second, English criminal justice administration in this era is best viewed as a two-tiered system, in which heightened procedural and evidentiary protections for defendants tried for felonies in higher courts coexisted with a system of reduced protections for defendants tried summarily for misdemeanors.

Allegations of abuse: the need for responsible practice.

The current UK child protection process has evolved reactively out of scandals. This has led to a culture of support and empathy with those making allegations of abuse while offering no robust means by which false claims can be recognised. Information has been collected from 22 families who became subject to criminal or civil proceedings when a female adolescent or young adult developed a mental health problem. The resultant outcomes were mostly disastrous, for the young person and the family. In every case there was no evidence supporting the allegations of abuse, and substantive evidence they were false, yet this crucial information had not been sought. Each of the 22 families complained that enquiries began from a presumption of guilt. The families documented common and recurring problems, which led them to feel alienated from professionals. Claims of innocence were taken as evidence of guilt, and information was interpreted in a manner that fitted only this presumption while factual evidence to the contrary was ignored. The reasons underlying this professional behaviour are considered. Among the presumed 'victims', outcomes were positively correlated with the level of residual contact between the alleged victim and their family, especially the mother. However, this did not hold true in cases where allegations of abuse arose in the context of an acrimonious parental relationship breakdown. There were no good outcomes where parents were completely excluded. It is not clear that families and alleged 'victims' will fare any better under recently revised guidance and framework.

Law Enforcement and Legal Presumptions

We compare two alternative legal presumptions, one more pro-defendant than the other, with the objective of reducing bureaucratic corruption to any target level at minimum social costs, broadly defined to include law enforcement costs, trial costs, and verdict error costs. In the absence of collusion possibilities between law enforcers and offenders, presumption of innocence involves lower social costs for low corruption targets while presumption of guilt has a cost advantage for high corruption targets. Allowing for collusion enlarges the corruption range over which the presumed innocence rule will dominate. However, there are two possible exceptions to this outcome, namely, if the government's law enforcement budget is limited and if the offenders can be penalized only up to a maximum permissible limit. In each of these cases, presumption of guilt may become the cost-effective rule. J. Comp. Econ., December 2001, 29(4), pp. 722–748. Bilkent University, Bilkent 06533, Ankara, Turkey; and Department of Economics and Finance, Birkbeck College, University of London, 7-15 Gresse Street, London W1T 1LL, United Kingdom. © 2001 Elsevier ScienceJournal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: D73, D78, K41, K42.

Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials.

In 25 Canadian criminal trials involving charges of sexual abuse, 849 prospective jurors were asked under oath whether they could hear the evidence, follow the judge's instructions on the law, and decide the case with a fair and impartial mind. Knowing only the nature of the charges against the accused, on average 36% of the jurors stated that they could not be impartial. Some jurors explained that they themselves had been victims of abuse, others expressed fears for children, while others stated simply that they could not set aside a presumption of guilt. These findings from real trials are consistent with a body of social science literature about attitudes toward sexual abuse and sexual assault charges. The article distinguishes between prejudices arising from specific pretrial publicity and generic prejudices that cause prejudgments of the case of any defendant perceived as belonging to a general class of defendants who likely are guilty of the crime(s) charged.

A Brief Rejoinder to Michael Zander

about it?) They equate more guilty pleas with more miscarriages of justice (p 90) a proposition for which there is no evidence.10 They say that the system's 'overall presumption of guilt' would be 'reinforced . . . by greater powers for the police to obtain evidence from suspects' (p 90), when the evidence in question is mainly physical or real evidence, such as samples for DNA analysis, which ought to be better evidence of guilt (or for that matter, non-guilt) than is usually available. They speak of 'new limitations on the Court of Appeal' (p 90), when the Report's proposals regarding the Court of Appeal are mainly in the direction of better protection of the defendant. They suggest that the Report's recommendations provide a useful 'law and order' agenda, when they could equally well have pointed to the longer (indeed, much longer) list of useful reforms to aid the defence. On each topic Bridges and McConville present only what serves their thesis and ignore everything to the contrary. In short, this is not so much a review worthy of a scholarly journal as a hatchetjob.

Controlling Corruption in the Construction Industry: The Quebec Approach

Between 1968 and 1975, the Province of Quebec instituted several laws to combat violence and corruption in its construction industry. Among them were a requirement that all construction workers belong to a union, and all contractors to the sole employers' association; province-wide coverage of construction workers and employers by a single collective agreement at any given time; the presumption of guilt of anyone charged with criminal activities in the industry; mandated multiple sources of manpower, to prevent monopolies in manpower allocation; mandatory elections of union stewards, to prevent abuses by appointed stewards; the barring from union office of those with criminal records; and government trusteeship of several union locals. The author credits these measures with dramatically reducing violence and corruption, but cautions that they might not be readily transferable to labor relations systems outside Quebec.

The presumption of guilt in the history of english criminal procedure

(1986). The presumption of guilt in the history of english criminal procedure. The Journal of Legal History: Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 243-255.

Republic v. Director of Prisons, ex parte Allotey and Another

Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of courts to try offences taking effect abroad — The law of GhanaThe individual in international law — Extradition — Extradition of nationals — Whether nationals can be extradited — Whether any uniform international practice on the question of extradition of nationals — The practice of Ghana — Conditions of extradition — Extraditable crimes — Rule of dual criminality — The standard of proof in extradition matters — Proper test — Whether “strong or probable presumption of guilt” necessary for order of surrender — Jurisdiction of the requesting State to try the offence — How determined — Jurisdiction of courts to try offence taking effect abroad — The law of Ghana

On the Economics of Law and Order

Professor Becker has recently demonstrated the usefulness of conventional economic analysis in coming to grips with what is usually considered to be a noneconomic problem-crime and punishment (Becker 1968). In the article, he derives criteria for optimal levels of expenditure on enforcement and form of punishment subject to a given legal framework. The point of this paper is that the legal framework need not be taken as constant but is itself subject to policy choice. Therefore, I propose to extend the Becker framework to take account of this additional area of social choice and compare the implications of this model with the original, less complete version. Among countries and over time, one can find enormous variations in rules of the game pertaining to standards of evidence, presumption of guilt, rights to counsel, and procedures for arrest and indictment. Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding rights of accused persons and restricting the freedom of police to obtain evidence in certain ways have become a major political issue of late. Indeed, the Becker model as formulated would seem to agree with some proponents of law and order who argue that it is undesirable to tie the hands of the police with legal niceties. After all, it is quite clear that the costs of apprehending and convicting a given percentage of offenders will be lower without these conventions than it would be with them. Note that in certain conditions, such as a state of martial law, many legal safeguards are relaxed, presumably to apprehend a maximum proportion of offenders with minimum cost. Despite Geneva Conventions, it has not been unknown for occupying armies to punish entire communities when certain offenses

The Presumption of Guilt

The Presumption of Guilt