Listing 1 - 3 of 3 |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
Das vorliegende Buch gibt einen Überblick, wie die maßgeblichen europäischen Rechtsordnungen einem der Kernprobleme des Zivilprozessrechts gegenübertreten: dem Beweismaß. Vierzehn herausragende Rechtswissenschaftler erörtern die Herangehensweise ihres Rechtssystems und tragen so zur Suche nach einem allgemeingültigen Standard bei.
Certainty. --- Certainty --- Rabbinische Exegese --- Methoden der Auslegung --- Likehood --- Standard of Proof --- Evidence --- Zivilverfahrensrecht, Insolvenzrecht
Choose an application
The French Law of evidence is at the crossroad between procedural law and civil law. As part of the procedural law, it is governed by general principles set out by the Code de procédure civile, such as the contradictory principle, the principle of public hearing or the free disposition principle, which means that the parties define the framework of the proceeding and that the judge cannot base his decision on facts that were not put forward by the parties themselves. It is also the Code de procédure civile that organises the respective roles of the judge and the parties for the taking of evidence: since 1976, it imposes a – rather complex – balance between adversarial and inquisitorial principles. Other general principles were set by case law, e.g. the principle that no one can pre-constitute evidence in his own favour or the principle of fair evidence. On the other hand, more substantive rules are to be found in the Code civil. These rules mix two systems, the system of the preuve morale, applicable in some specific litigation, and the system of the preuve légale, which is clearly dominant in civil litigation. In the first system, evidence is in principle free, which means not only that any mode of proof is admissible, but also that assessment of evidence by the judges is free. In the second one, only determined means of evidence are admissible and their probative force is often set out by law. A majority of evidence rules derive more or less directly from this summa divisio. In fact, the predominance of the preuve légale system has made the French system of evidence rather rigid, in particular regarding the exaggerated importance of written evidence.
Law - Europe, except U.K. --- Law - Non-U.S. --- Law, Politics & Government --- inquisitorial principle --- burden of proof --- written evidence --- free disposition principle --- adversarial principle --- iura novit curia --- testimonial evidence --- orality --- fair evidence --- contradictory principle --- standard of proof --- Civil procedure --- Court of Cassation (France) --- France --- Law of France --- Letters rogatory --- LexisNexis --- Napoleonic Code --- Relevance (law)
Choose an application
The complicated relationship between defendants with mental health disorders and the criminal justice system The American criminal justice system is based on the bedrock principles of fairness and justice for all. In striving to ensure that all criminal defendants are treated equally under the law, it endeavors to handle similar cases in similar fashion, attempting to apply rules and procedures even-handedly regardless of a defendant’s social class, race, ethnicity, or gender. Yet, the criminal justice system has also recognized exceptions when special circumstances underlie a defendant’s behavior or are likely to skew the defendant’s trial. One of the most controversial set of exceptions –often poorly articulated and inconsistently applied – involves criminal defendants with a mental disorder. A series of special rules and procedures has evolved over the centuries, often without fanfare and even today with little systematic examination, that lawyers and judges apply to cases involving defendants with a mental disorder. This book provides an analysis of the key issues in this dynamic interplay between individuals with a mental disorder and the criminal justice system. The volume identifies the various stages of criminal justice proceedings when the mental status of a defendant may be relevant, associated legal and policy issues, the history and evolution of these issues, and how they are currently resolved. To assist this exploration, the text also offers an overview of mental disorders, their relevance to criminal proceedings, how forensic mental health assessments are conducted and employed during these proceedings, and their application to competency and responsibility determinations. In sum, this book provides an important resource for students and scholars with an interest in mental health, law, and criminal justice.
Forensic psychiatry --- Mentally ill offenders --- Insanity defense --- Insanity (Law) --- Legal status, laws, etc. --- American Law Institute Model Penal Code test. --- Boston Marathon Bombing. --- Clark v. Arizona. --- Colorado v. Connelly. --- Cooper v. Oklahoma. --- Drope v. Missouri. --- Durham rule. --- Dusky v. United States. --- Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping. --- Foucha v. Louisiana. --- Gabrielle Giffords Shooting. --- Godinez v. Moran. --- Indiana v. Edwards. --- Jackson v. Indiana. --- Jones v. United States. --- Long Island Rail Road Shooter. --- Medina v. California. --- Miranda rights. --- Miranda v. Arizona. --- Montana v. Egelhoff. --- Pate v. Robinson. --- Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter. --- Sell v. United States. --- The Unabomber. --- Virginia Tech Shooter. --- abolition of the insanity defense. --- absence at trial. --- actus reus. --- amnesia. --- antisocial personality disorder. --- assessing malingering. --- automatic commitment. --- battered spouse/child defense. --- bipolar disorders. --- bona fide doubt. --- broken window approach. --- burden of proof. --- categorical incompetence. --- clear and convincing evidence. --- clinical mental health evaluations and treatment. --- competence to confess. --- competence to plead guilty. --- competence to represent oneself. --- competence to testify. --- competence to waive the right to an attorney. --- competency to stand trial. --- conditional release and release revocations. --- consult with assist attorney. --- correctional facility evaluations. --- correctional facility placements. --- criminal justice system alternatives. --- criminal justice system. --- criminal proceedings. --- criminal trial proceedings. --- crisis intervention teams. --- de facto mental health care system. --- deific decree defense. --- demeanor at trial. --- depressive disorders. --- dissociative disorders. --- evaluation locations. --- evaluator qualifications. --- fair and just trials. --- federal test. --- forensic mental health assessment process. --- forensic mental health assessments. --- forensic mental health evaluations. --- functional test. --- guilty but mentally ill verdict. --- history of irrational behaviour. --- impact of medication. --- impact of mental disorders. --- incompetent to stand trial. --- indefinite length of stay. --- indicators of malingering. --- initial evaluation request. --- insanity acquittee post-trial dispositions. --- insanity defense myths. --- insanity defense. --- irresistible impulse test. --- judicial hearings. --- justification versus excuse. --- law enforcement discretion. --- malingering. --- mental disorder myths. --- mental disorders and criminal behavior. --- mental disorders and violence. --- mental health courts. --- neurocognitive disorders. --- nonadversarial team approach. --- obsessive-compulsive disorders. --- obtaining experts for indigent defendant. --- outpatient community treatment. --- personality disorders. --- present mental capacity. --- presumption of incompetence. --- psychiatric facility placements. --- psychodynamic models. --- psychotic disorders. --- reporting requirements. --- right to a jury. --- risk assessments. --- scope of expert’s assistance. --- second evaluations. --- shifting/raising burden of proof. --- sleep-walking defense. --- standard of proof. --- standards for establishing competence. --- sua sponte. --- the insanity defense and variations. --- therapeutic jurisprudence. --- trauma and stressor-related disorders. --- treatment over objection.
Listing 1 - 3 of 3 |
Sort by
|