Titlebook: Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice; Psychological Perspe Peter J. Koppen,Steven D. Penrod Book 2003 Springer Science+Business Media N

记成蚂蚁

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39135-9most remarkable cases is that of Joseph Lesurques who had been accused of robbing a postal coach, along with four other robbers in 1796 (Sporer, Köhnken, & Malpass, 1996). In the years to follow, a total of approximately 13 persons (the exact number depends on various historical sources, see Sporer,

Archipelago

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39135-9ing each other. It is not the state that accuses in this trial; it is the state, or rather the system of law, that is on trial here. And although one could argue that the state is on trial in every case brought to the courtroom, where it needs to ascertain that conviction is the right thing to do in

tympanometry

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9534-7y little professional experience with adversarial type justice systems. My perception of the expert’s role in the latter type of system is therefore necessarily largely based on what I have read about it in the scholarly literature as well as, inevitably, by what I have seen in factual and fictional

Affable

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9534-7e differences in legal procedure between the two countries would be negligible compared to differences with accusatorial systems. And, indeed if one spends a day in court in The Netherlands and in Germany the two legal systems seem to share many features. The court—in both countries usually a three

伤心

Ovulation

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9534-7the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and its sister court, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Both have been said to have put “flesh on the bones of international humanitarian law.” For the first time, such bodies exist under the umbrella of the Un

骗子