Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x
Article

Access_open The Common Law Remedy of Habeas Corpus Through the Prism of a Twelve-Point Construct

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2021
Trefwoorden Habeas corpus, common law, detainee, consitution, liberty
Auteurs Chuks Okpaluba en Anthony Nwafor
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Long before the coming of the Bill of Rights in written Constitutions, the common law has had the greatest regard for the personal liberty of the individual. In order to safeguard that liberty, the remedy of habeas corpus was always available to persons deprived of their liberty unlawfully. This ancient writ has been incorporated into the modern Constitution as a fundamental right and enforceable as other rights protected by virtue of their entrenchment in those Constitutions. This article aims to bring together the various understanding of habeas corpus at common law and the principles governing the writ in common law jurisdictions. The discussion is approached through a twelve-point construct thus providing a brief conspectus of the subject matter, such that one could have a better understanding of the subject as applied in most common law jurisdictions.


Chuks Okpaluba
Chuks Okpaluba, LLB LLM (London), PhD (West Indies), is a Research Fellow at the Free State Centre for Human Rights, University of the Free State, South Africa. Email: okpaluba@mweb.co.za.

Anthony Nwafor
Anthony O. Nwafor, LLB, LLM, (Nigeria), PhD (UniJos), BL, is Professor at the School of Law, University of Venda, South Africa. Email: Anthony.Nwafor@univen.ac.za.
Artikel

Access_open A new interpretation of the modern two-pronged tests for insanity

Why legal insanity should not be a ‘status defense’

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden substantive criminal law, excuses, insanity defense, status defense
Auteurs Johannes Bijlsma
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Michael Moore has argued that modern two-pronged tests for legal insanity are wrongheaded and that the insanity defense instead should be a ‘status defense’. If Moore is right, than the laws on insanity in most legal systems are wrong. This merits a critical examination of Moore’s critique and his alternative approach. In this paper I argue that Moore’s status approach to insanity is either under- or overinclusive. A new interpretation of the modern tests for insanity is elaborated that hinges on the existence of a legally relevant difference between the mentally disordered defendant and the ‘normal’ defendant. This interpretation avoids Moore’s criticism as well as the pitfalls of the status approach.


Johannes Bijlsma
Johannes Bijlsma is assistant professor of criminal law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    This paper explores the roles that the presumption of innocence (PoI) can play beyond the criminal trial, in other dealings that citizens may have with the criminal law and its officials. It grounds the PoI in a wider notion of the civic trust that citizens owe each other, and that the state owes its citizens: by attending to the roles that citizens may find themselves playing in relation to the criminal law (such roles as suspect, defendant, convicted offender and ‘ex-offender’), we can see both how a PoI protects us, beyond the confines of the trial, against various kinds of coercion, and how that PoI is modified or qualified as we acquire certain roles. To develop and illustrate this argument, I pay particular attention to the roles of defendant (both during the trial and while awaiting trial) and of ‘ex-offender,’ and to the duties that such roles bring with them.


Antony Duff
Antony Duff holds the Russell M and Elizabeth M Bennett Chair in the University of Minnesota Law School, and is a Professor Emeritus of the Department of Philosophy, University of Stirling.
Artikel

De psychiater en toerekeningsvatbaarheid

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 1 2013
Trefwoorden forensic psychiatrists, criminal responsibility, administration of criminal justice, legal insanity, legal insanity standard
Auteurs G. Meynen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Currently, there is a vivid debate in the Netherlands about the possible non-existence of free will and its implications for criminal law, in particular for the concept of ‘criminal responsibility’. Especially forensic psychiatrists who advise the court on a defendant’s legal insanity feel uneasiness because of this discussion on free will. In this contribution the author suggests to reconsider the current practice in the Netherlands in which psychiatrists explicitly advise the court on legal insanity and to consider the option to leave the judgment on legal insanity entirely to the judge. Meanwhile, of course, psychiatrists will have to inform the judge about the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the crime and its influence on the defendant’s behaviour. If needed, in order to optimize communication between the medical domain (psychiatrist) and the legal domain (judge), a legal insanity standard could be developed and introduced.


G. Meynen
Prof. dr. Gerben Meynen is als bijzonder hoogleraar forensische psychiatrie verbonden aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.

James Boyd White
James Boyd White is Hart Wright Professor of Law, Professor of English, and Adjunct Professor of Classical Studies, The University of Michigan.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.