The Experts below are selected from a list of 10578 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kata Németh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Collisions of fundamental rights in the legislative background of criminal procedure particularly regarding the sector-specific confidentiality
2019Co-Authors: Kata NémethAbstract:The right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal is a fundamental right everybody is entitled to. Through such right, transparency and publicity becomes an important guarantee of the administration of justice, in a broader sense, and as a procedural principle of different Court Proceedings as well. The collision between the requirements of privacy protection and transparency impose challenges on the legislator, the legal practitioners and on the judicial practice as well, from many aspects. Beyond issues of data protection, these requirements influence the publicity of the Courtroom, the publicity of Proceedings to the press, and the protection of personality rights. In the general interpretation publicity is a safeguard which guarantees the indecency and impartiality of the Court and it is also a significant instrument of social control. The study distinguishes between the different level of publicity in a criminal procedures such as “socially publicity”, “Courtroom publicity” and “client publicity” and examines practicable problems like online-streaming during the criminal Court Proceeding. In order to ensure the transparency of Courts, the information stored must be provided to the parties, other authorities, and the media, taking into account applicable legal provisions. When it comes to the operation of Courts, one of the biggest problems with regard to the constitutionality of data processing is when the qualification of a particular data is changed several times in different procedural stages, and is – consequently – subject to different legal protection. Needless to say that the same data cannot be considered as both public and protected at the same time in the same procedure. However, this issue arises regularly, which is quite frankly a legal nonsense requiring an immediate and comprehensive solution. Finally the study mentions some de lege ferenda recommendations as well.
-
A büntetőeljárás nyilvánosságának jogszabályi hátterében húzódó alapjogi kollíziók feltárása, különös tekintettel az ágazati titokvédelemre
Debreceni Jogi Műhely, 2019Co-Authors: Kata NémethAbstract:The right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal is a fundamental right everybody is entitled to. Through such right, transparency and publicity becomes an important guarantee of the administration of justice, in a broader sense, and as a procedural principle of different Court Proceedings as well. The collision between the requirements of privacy protection and transparency impose challenges on the legislator, the legal practitioners and on the judicial practice as well, from many aspects. Beyond issues of data protection, these requirements influence the publicity of the Courtroom, the publicity of Proceedings to the press, and the protection of personality rights. In the general interpretation publicity is a safeguard which guarantees the indecency and impartiality of the Court and it is also a significant instrument of social control. The study distinguishes between the different level of publicity in a criminal procedure such as “socially publicity”, “Courtroom publicity” and “client publicity” and examines practicable problems like online-streaming during the criminal Court Proceeding. In order to ensure the transparency of Courts, the information stored must be provided to the parties, other authorities, and the media, taking into account applicable legal provisions. When it comes to the operation of Courts, one of the biggest problems with regard to the constitutionality of data processing is when the qualification of a particular data is changed several times in different procedural stages, and be – consequently – subject to different legal protection. Needless to say that the same data cannot be considered as both public and protected at the same time in the same procedure. However, this issue arises regularly, which is quite frankly a legal nonsense requiring an immediate and comprehensive solution. Finally, the study mentions some de lege ferenda recommendations as well.
Miki Vohryzek-bolden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ETHICAL DILEMMAS CONFRONTING CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS
Journal of Crime and Justice, 1997Co-Authors: Miki Vohryzek-boldenAbstract:ABSTRACT Criminological researchers confront complex ethical issues ranging from questions regarding fabrication of data, plagiarism and confidentiality to subject rights and deceptions. Ethical dilemmas also arise when a researcher is asked to appear as an expert witness in a Court Proceeding; questions regarding the qualifications of the expert, monetary compensation, and interpretation. This research, which builds on Longmire's study in 1980, attempts to determine the frequency with which criminological researchers are confronted with various dilemmas. Based upon a survey of the American Society of Criminology officers and executives from 1988-1993, the data indicate that at least half of the respondents noted they experienced some dilemma relating to questions of subject consent, confidentiality, or deception; others expressed concerns regarding neglected areas of inquiry because of funding restrictions and non-publication of research due to perceived racial overtones. Finally, respondents expressed c...
Elizabeth Cauffman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
emerging findings from research on adolescent development and juvenile justice
Victims & Offenders, 2012Co-Authors: Elizabeth Cauffman, Laurence SteinbergAbstract:Abstract Three fundamental questions have continued to challenge the juvenile justice system: (1) Should adolescents be held to adult standards of criminal culpability and, accordingly, be exposed to the same punishment as adults? (2) Do adolescents possess the necessary capabilities to function as competent defendants in an adversarial Court Proceeding? (3) How are juvenile offenders affected by the sorts of punitive sanctions that became increasingly popular during the last several decades? Over the past decade, there has been a remarkable expansion of scientific knowledge relevant to adolescent development and juvenile justice in general, and these specific questions in particular. As such, the goal of this article is to provide a summary of what is known in developmental research and how it has (or has not) influenced juvenile justice practice and policy—specifically in the realms of brain development, cognitive development, and psychosocial/socio-emotional development.
-
Perceptions of procedural justice among female offenders: Time does not heal all wounds.
Psychology Public Policy and Law, 2012Co-Authors: Joseph R. Tatar, Suzanne O. Kaasa, Elizabeth CauffmanAbstract:The current study examined the association between perceived procedural injustice of Court experiences and emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes among 94 adolescent and young adult females incarcerated in a high security juvenile facility. Specifically, perceived injustice was related to background characteristics (e.g., race), as well as increased levels of depressive symptoms, institutional offending, and substance use within the facility. These negative effects of perceived injustice were most evident among participants who had been incarcerated for longer periods of time. This suggests that perceived unjust treatment during a Court Proceeding may have long-term effects once an offender is incarcerated and that both Court and correctional settings need to take these perceptions into account.
H Thomas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
H.R.248 - To amend the Public Health Service Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to strike unrelated provisions concerning changes to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and liability for vaccine manufacturers.
2003Co-Authors: Allen, H ThomasAbstract:Amends the Public Health Service Act to repeal provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 amending the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program under the Act. Repeals modifications to the definitions of manufacturer and vaccine-related injury or death and an added definition of vaccine. States that this Act shall be deemed to have taken effect instantly upon the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Declares that this Act and the repealed provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 may not be construed as having any legal effect on any Court Proceeding or decision involving any issue with which such provisions were concerned.
Németh Kata - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A büntetőeljárás nyilvánosságának jogszabályi hátterében húzódó alapjogi kollíziók feltárása, különös tekintettel az ágazati titokvédelemre
Debreceni Egyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar, 2020Co-Authors: Németh KataAbstract:The right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal is a fundamental right everybody is entitled to. Through such right, transparency and publicity becomes an important guarantee of the administration of justice, in a broader sense, and as a procedural principle of different Court Proceedings as well. The collision between the requirements of privacy protection and transparency impose challenges on the legislator, the legal practitioners and on the judicial practice as well, from many aspects. Beyond issues of data protection, these requirements influence the publicity of the Courtroom, the publicity of Proceedings to the press, and the protection of personality rights. In the general interpretation publicity is a safeguard which guarantees the indecency and impartiality of the Court and it is also a significant instrument of social control. The study distinguishes between the different level of publicity in a criminal procedures such as “socially publicity”, “Courtroom publicity” and “client publicity” and examines practicable problems like online-streaming during the criminal Court Proceeding. In order to ensure the transparency of Courts, the information stored must be provided to the parties, other authorities, and the media, taking into account applicable legal provisions. When it comes to the operation of Courts, one of the biggest problems with regard to the constitutionality of data processing is when the qualification of a particular data is changed several times in different procedural stages, and is – consequently – subject to different legal protection. Needless to say that the same data cannot be considered as both public and protected at the same time in the same procedure. However, this issue arises regularly, which is quite frankly a legal nonsense requiring an immediate and comprehensive solution. Finally the study mentions some de lege ferenda recommendations as well.The right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal is a fundamental right everybody is entitled to. Through such right, transparency and publicity becomes an important guarantee of the administration of justice, in a broader sense, and as a procedural principle of different Court Proceedings as well. The collision between the requirements of privacy protection and transparency impose challenges on the legislator, the legal practitioners and on the judicial practice as well, from many aspects. Beyond issues of data protection, these requirements influence the publicity of the Courtroom, the publicity of Proceedings to the press, and the protection of personality rights. In the general interpretation publicity is a safeguard which guarantees the indecency and impartiality of the Court and it is also a significant instrument of social control. The study distinguishes between the different level of publicity in a criminal procedures such as “socially publicity”, “Courtroom publicity” and “client publicity” and examines practicable problems like online-streaming during the criminal Court Proceeding. In order to ensure the transparency of Courts, the information stored must be provided to the parties, other authorities, and the media, taking into account applicable legal provisions. When it comes to the operation of Courts, one of the biggest problems with regard to the constitutionality of data processing is when the qualification of a particular data is changed several times in different procedural stages, and is – consequently – subject to different legal protection. Needless to say that the same data cannot be considered as both public and protected at the same time in the same procedure. However, this issue arises regularly, which is quite frankly a legal nonsense requiring an immediate and comprehensive solution. Finally the study mentions some de lege ferenda recommendations as well
