Despite high media attention and frequent TV portrayals, examining judges are actually active in only a small minority of cases. In 2005, there were one.1 million criminal rulings in France, while only 33,000 new cases were inquired in to by judges.[2] The huge majority of cases are therefore inquired in to directly by law enforcement agencies (police, gendarmerie) under the supervision of the Office of Public Prosecutions (procureurs).
France[edit]
The main feature of the inquisitorial technique in criminal justice in France and other countries functioning along the same lines is the function of the examining or inquiring in to judge (juge d'instruction). The examining judge conducts investigations in to serious crimes or complex inquiries. As members of the judiciary, s/he is independent and outside the province of the executive branch, and therefore separate from the Office of Public Prosecutions which is supervised by the Minister of Justice.
The judge questions witnesses, interrogates suspects, and orders searches for other investigations. Their role is not to prosecute the accused, but to collect facts, and as such their duty is to look for any and all facts (à charge et à décharge), incriminating or exculpatory. Both the prosecution and the defense may request the judge to act and may appeal the judge's decisions before an appellate court. The scope of the inquiry is limited by the mandate given by the prosecutor's office: the examining judge cannot open a criminal inquiry sua sponte.
Historically the examining judge could order committal of the accused, this power being subject to appeal. However, this is no longer the case, and other judges must approve a committal order.
Examining judges are used for serious crimes, e.g., murder and rape, and for crimes involving complexity, such as embezzlement, misuse of public money, and corruption.
If the examining judge decides there is a valid case against a suspect, the accused is sent for adversarial trial by jury. The examining judge does not sit on the trial court which tries the case and is in fact prohibited from sitting for future cases involving the same defendant. The case is tried before the court in a manner similar to that of adversarial courts: the prosecution (and on occasion a plaintiff) seeks the conviction of accused criminals, the defense attempts to rebut the prosecution claims, and the judge and jury draw their conclusions from the facts introduced at trial.
Because of judicial inquiry and defendants being able to have judicial proceedings dismissed on procedural grounds in the work of the examining phase, cases where the facts is weak tend not to reach the trial stage. Conversely, the guilty plea and plea bargaining were until recently unknown to Italian law, and now it only applies to crimes for which the maximum sentence is year confinement. Therefore, most cases go to trial, including cases where the prosecution is very positive to gain a conviction, whereas, in countries such as the United States, these would be settled by plea bargain.
France[edit]
The main feature of the inquisitorial technique in criminal justice in France and other countries functioning along the same lines is the function of the examining or inquiring in to judge (juge d'instruction). The examining judge conducts investigations in to serious crimes or complex inquiries. As members of the judiciary, s/he is independent and outside the province of the executive branch, and therefore separate from the Office of Public Prosecutions which is supervised by the Minister of Justice.
The judge questions witnesses, interrogates suspects, and orders searches for other investigations. Their role is not to prosecute the accused, but to collect facts, and as such their duty is to look for any and all facts (à charge et à décharge), incriminating or exculpatory. Both the prosecution and the defense may request the judge to act and may appeal the judge's decisions before an appellate court. The scope of the inquiry is limited by the mandate given by the prosecutor's office: the examining judge cannot open a criminal inquiry sua sponte.
Historically the examining judge could order committal of the accused, this power being subject to appeal. However, this is no longer the case, and other judges must approve a committal order.
Examining judges are used for serious crimes, e.g., murder and rape, and for crimes involving complexity, such as embezzlement, misuse of public money, and corruption.
If the examining judge decides there is a valid case against a suspect, the accused is sent for adversarial trial by jury. The examining judge does not sit on the trial court which tries the case and is in fact prohibited from sitting for future cases involving the same defendant. The case is tried before the court in a manner similar to that of adversarial courts: the prosecution (and on occasion a plaintiff) seeks the conviction of accused criminals, the defense attempts to rebut the prosecution claims, and the judge and jury draw their conclusions from the facts introduced at trial.
Because of judicial inquiry and defendants being able to have judicial proceedings dismissed on procedural grounds in the work of the examining phase, cases where the facts is weak tend not to reach the trial stage. Conversely, the guilty plea and plea bargaining were until recently unknown to Italian law, and now it only applies to crimes for which the maximum sentence is year confinement. Therefore, most cases go to trial, including cases where the prosecution is very positive to gain a conviction, whereas, in countries such as the United States, these would be settled by plea bargain.
No comments:
Post a Comment