What’s so Special about the Criminal Trial?
A Comment on Sarah Summers «Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof, and Rights»
Resumen
This paper offers some further support to Sarah Summers’ argument, in «The Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof, and Rights», that we cannot separate process from outcome in the criminal trial—that the justification and legitimacy of the verdict (especially of a conviction) depends crucially on the procedure through which it was reached. Intuitive support for this view is found by considering the case of a guilty person who is convicted after a trial that denied him the opportunity or means for «effective participation»; further support is found in the provisions made for those who are «unfit to plead», those who lack the capacities necessary for effective participation in their trial. A firmer grounding for this view is then found in a theory of the criminal trial as a process through which alleged public wrongdoers are called to account—a process in which they should be active participants.
Palabras clave
Criminal trials, process and outcome, fitness to plead, calling to accountCitas
Bevan, M. and Ormerod, D. (2018). Reforming the Law of Unfitness to Plead in England and Wales: A Recent History. In R. Mackay and W. Brookbanks (Ed.), Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives (pp. 55-80). Oxford University Press.
Bohlander, M. (2012). Principles of German Criminal Procedure. Hart Publishing.
Duff, R. A. (2018). The Ream of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E. and Tadros, V. (2007). The Trial on Trial (3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial. Hart Publishing.
Gardner, J. (2007). The Mark of Responsibility. In J. Gardner, Offences and Defences (pp. 177-200). Oxford University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment. In H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (pp. 1-27). Oxford University Press.
Ichikawa, J. J. and Steup, M. (2018). The Analysis of Knowledge. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/knowledge-analysis/
Law Commission (2016). Unfitness to Plead (vol. 1-2). Law Commission.
Mackay, R. and Brookbanks, W. (Eds.) (2018). Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives.
Oxford University Press.
Mckenzie, A. (2005). This Death Some Strong and Stout Hearted Man Doth Choose: The Practice of Peine Fort et Dure in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England. Law & History Review, 23, p. 279-313.
Oberdiek, J. (2017). Imposing Risk: A Normative Framework. Oxford University Press.
Sprack, J. and Engelhardt-Sprack, M. (2019). A Practical Approach to Criminal Procedure (16th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Summers, S. J. (2023). The Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof, and Rights. Quaestio Facti, 4(1), 249-271.
Wenar, L. (2013). The Nature of Claim-Rights. Ethics, 123, 202-229.
Cases and legislation
Bail Act 1976. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/contents
European Convention on Human Rights (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Ford v Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung – StPO)
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43
Mental Health Act 1983. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20/contents
R v Galbraith (1981) 1 WLR 1039
R v Jones (Anthony) (2003) 1 AC
SC v UK (2005) 40 EHRR 10
Stanford v UK (1994) 2 WLUK 324
T v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i5.22823Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 Antony Duff
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.