Defining and Registering Criminal Offences and Measures - Oapen

More documents

Recommendations

Info

178 Prosecution offences are decriminalised or when the police have the power of discretion the input into the PPS is reduced; therefore the need of selection at PPS level is lowered. If on the other hand the police hand all offences on to the PPS the Criminal Justice System will have to allow for considerable discretion. Therefore the prosecutorial decision can not be treated in isolation, but in dependence of its role within the respective criminal justice system (cjs) and of the input and output at this level. In this respect a set of selected, but representative criminal justice systems of Croatia, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey has been studied. The prosecution service’s workload depends on the input from the police level. How a prosecution service can deal with the cases falling into its mandate is a subject of great variation within Europe. The basic structures are as follows: There are countries (e.g. Poland) in which the prosecuting authority has neither the discretion to drop a case nor the ability to impose conditions/sanctions upon an offender; in accordance with a strict principle of legality the prosecuting authority merely has the function of preparing a case for court. Here the input is identical to the output; all cases have to be brought before a court (except evidentially insufficient cases etc. which can, of course, be dropped in accordance with the principle of legality). In many European countries the prosecuting authority doesn’t only drop cases in accordance with the principle of legality but additionally has discretion whether or not to prosecute (i.e. to drop a case completely if there is no public interest in prosecution). Furthermore, in some countries the prosecuting authority has not only a discretion whether to prosecute or not, but also the ability to conditionally drop the case, i.e. to bind or sanction the suspected offender, e.g. to pay a sort of fine as in Germany and the Netherlands. This is only possible if s/he agrees to the measure (otherwise the case will go to court). As the condition is “voluntarily” fulfilled, this sort of “sanction” is not seen as a conviction. Another case ending decision on prosecution level can be seen as a real sanction, the so called penal order. In some countries, like in Sweden, it is an autonomous decision of the Prosecutor, in other countries like in Germany the prosecution service files for court approval in summary, i.e. written, proceedings. The court can only entirely reject the application and this happens very rarely. Functionally this can be understood as a prosecution service decision which is checked and approved by the court. But unlike a conditional disposal it is formally a conviction. As a result of these findings improved categories for PPS decisions could be developed and implemented in this project.
Prosecution 179 2. Preliminary discussion and development of draft definitions and questions The 3rd edition of the ESB did not feature a prosecution chapter. This was due to the fact that after evaluation of the answers to the prosecution part of the 2nd edition it was felt that this chapter was problematic with respect to data availability and comparability and should be revised, based on the results of the abovementioned PPS projects. This was done for the 4th edition during this AGIS project: For the ESB it was decided to keep the approach more simple in order to get answers from most of the countries. Nevertheless it was considered useful to try to collect data also by offence type (differently from earlier editions). In a first draft of the prosecution questionnaire specific problems were addressed: In order to be able to establish a timeline, it would be necessary to know at least how many cases were pending at the beginning of the year. Unknown offenders need to be identified; they should be included in the output statistics, but if possible separate data on this category should be provided. Correspondents should explain / specify whether and how unknown offenders are counted in their respective country. Regarding disposals, in France for example, prosecutors can order measures such as caution (rappel à la loi); these measures are not convictions but should be considered. 3. Trial questionnaire and evaluation The trial questionnaire featured a new prosecution chapter. Apart from prosecutorial input, output, pending cases, case-ending decisions and staff of the prosecuting authority, for the first time the ESB group also tried to collect data on pre-trial detention and other compulsory measures. The results for these measures will be presented in the following chapter (L). With respect to the issues covered here, the trial questionnaire had the following wording:
Page 1:
Göttingen Studies in Criminal Law
Page 4 and 5:
Published als Volume 10 of the seri
Page 6 and 7:
Bibliographische Information der De
Page 8 and 9:
VI Project Acknowledgments Austria:
Page 11 and 12:
Preface The study presented in this
Page 13 and 14:
Table of Contents Project Acknowled
Page 15 and 16:
Table of Contents XIII E. Drug Offe
Page 17:
Table of Contents XV 2. Trial quest
Page 21 and 22:
A. Aims and Methodology of the Stud
Page 23 and 24:
Aims and Methodology of the Study 3
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
B. Criminal Offences Total As a par
Page 41 and 42:
Criminal Offences Total 21 In princ
Page 43 and 44:
Criminal Offences Total 23 data) st
Page 45 and 46:
Criminal Offences Total 25 4. Final
Page 47 and 48:
Criminal Offences Total 27 Table B.
Page 49 and 50:
Criminal Offences Total 29 5. Addit
Page 51:
Criminal Offences Total 31 Table B.
Page 54 and 55:
34 Bodily Injury (Assault) 2. First
Page 56 and 57:
36 Bodily Injury (Assault) Aggravat
Page 58 and 59:
38 Bodily Injury (Assault) The resu
Page 60 and 61:
40 Bodily Injury (Assault)
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
46 Bodily Injury (Assault) Of which
Page 68 and 69:
48 Bodily Injury (Assault) Table C.
Page 70 and 71:
50 Bodily Injury (Assault) Table C.
Page 72 and 73:
52 Bodily Injury (Assault) these fo
Page 75 and 76:
D. Rape and Other Sexual Offences A
Page 77 and 78:
Rape and Other Sexual Offences 57 R
Page 79 and 80:
Rape and Other Sexual Offences 59 S
Page 81 and 82:
Rape and Other Sexual Offences 61
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Rape and Other Sexual Offences 69 S
Page 91 and 92:
Rape and Other Sexual Offences 71 T
Page 93 and 94:
Rape and Other Sexual Offences 73 4
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103:
Page 106 and 107:
86 2. First steps and development o
Page 108 and 109:
88 Drug Offences of which Drug traf
Page 110 and 111:
90 Drug Offences
Page 112 and 113:
92 Drug Offences Drug offences: the
Page 114 and 115:
94 Drug Offences session for person
Page 116 and 117:
96 Table E.3.3: Results for the fin
Page 118 and 119:
98 Drug Offences drug trafficking v
Page 120 and 121:
100 Drug Offences Table E.6 shows t
Page 122 and 123:
102 Drug Offences
Page 125 and 126:
F. Fraud As a part of the project
Page 127 and 128:
Fraud 107 Extract of the subsidiary
Page 129 and 130:
Fraud 109 C. Minor fraud Among the
Page 131 and 132:
Fraud 111 E. Computer fraud Does th
Page 133 and 134:
Fraud 113 Hacking Illegal download
Page 135 and 136:
Fraud 115
Page 137 and 138:
Fraud 117 For the trial questionnai
Page 139 and 140:
Fraud 119
Page 141 and 142:
Fraud 121
Page 143 and 144:
Fraud 123
Page 145 and 146:
Fraud 125 Table F.8.1: Results for
Page 147 and 148: Fraud 127 Table F.8.3: Results for
Page 149 and 150: Fraud 129 law. 40 Apart from that,
Page 151 and 152: G. Computer Offences 1. First steps
Page 153 and 154: Computer Offences 133 The evaluatio
Page 155 and 156: Computer Offences 135
Page 157 and 158: Computer Offences 137 G.4.1). Three
Page 159 and 160: Computer Offences 139 Table G.4.2:
Page 161 and 162: Computer Offences 141
Page 163 and 164: H. Money Laundering 1. First steps
Page 165 and 166: Money laundering 145 Extract of the
Page 167 and 168: Money laundering 147
Page 169 and 170: Money laundering 149
Page 171 and 172: Money laundering 151 The evaluation
Page 173 and 174: Money laundering 153 Table H.5: Res
Page 175 and 176: Money laundering 155 convictions re
Page 177: Money laundering 157 5. Conclusion
Page 180 and 181: 160 Corruption a first proposal for
Page 182 and 183: 162 Corruption
Page 184 and 185: 164 Corruption A section of the sub
Page 188 and 189: 168 Table I.4.1: Results for the fi
Page 190 and 191: 170 Table I.4.3: Results for the fi
Page 192 and 193: 172 Corruption Corruption in the pu
Page 196 and 197: 176 Human Trafficking within the fr
Page 200 and 201: 180 Extract of the trial questionna
Page 202 and 203: 182 Sanctions imposed by the prosec
Page 204 and 205: 184 Source of the data in Table 2.1
Page 206 and 207: 186 Prosecution
Page 208 and 209: 188 2.2.D How are multiple offences
Page 210 and 211: 190 Prosecution After these parts o
Page 212 and 213: 192 Prosecution
Page 214 and 215: 194 Table K.5: Data availability fo
Page 216 and 217: 196 Prosecution Concerning the crim
Page 218 and 219: 198 Explanation of options availabl
Page 224 and 225: 204 Please explain the options avai
Page 226 and 227: 206 Table K.6: Counting unit used -
Page 228 and 229: 208 Table K.8.1: Disposal categorie
Page 230 and 231: 210 Prosecution Table K.8.3: Dispos
Page 232 and 233: 212 5. Conclusions Prosecution As t
Page 234 and 235: 214 Pre-Trial Detention and Other C
Page 238 and 239: 218 2.4 International legal coopera
Page 240 and 241: 220 Year of reference if other than
Page 242 and 243: 222 Extract of the trial questionna
Page 246 and 247: 226 Extract of the final questionna
Page 248 and 249:
228 Pre-Trial Detention and Other C
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
234 Sanctions persons have spent of
Page 256 and 257:
236 Sanctions
Page 258 and 259:
238 Sanctions
Page 260 and 261:
240 Sanctions
Page 262 and 263:
242 Sanctions 3.2.2.C Are there wri
Page 264 and 265:
244 Sanctions
Page 266 and 267:
246 Sanctions
Page 268 and 269:
248 Extract of the final questionna
Page 270 and 271:
250 Sanctions
Page 272 and 273:
252 Source of the data in Tables 3.
Page 274 and 275:
254 Sanctions 3.2.2.H How is a pers
Page 276 and 277:
256 Sanctions The question how reac
Page 279 and 280:
N. Prison Population As a part of t
Page 281 and 282:
Prison Population 261 Extract of th
Page 283 and 284:
Prison Population 263 Table 4.1.1 P
Page 285 and 286:
Prison Population 265
Page 287 and 288:
Prison Population 267 Source of the
Page 289 and 290:
Prison Population 269 Compared to t
Page 291 and 292:
Prison Population 271 that they are
Page 293 and 294:
Prison Population 273 3.2 Stock: Pr
Page 295 and 296:
Prison Population 275 Some countrie
Page 297 and 298:
O. Data on EU Citizens As an overar
Page 299 and 300:
Other Publications in the Series Vo
Page 301 and 302:
Other Publications in the Series 28
show all

Defining and Registering Criminal Offences and Measures - Oapen

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?