The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
Plea bargaining and its applicability in the Indian SystemAbsar Aftab Absar
The document summarizes a presentation on plea bargaining and its applicability in the Indian criminal justice system. Some key points:
- Plea bargaining has existed for over 800 years and aims to address problems like delays, difficulty securing convictions, and reducing under-trial prisoners. It was pioneered in the US in the early 1900s.
- India introduced plea bargaining in 2006 for crimes with maximum 7 year sentences. However, its application is more restricted than in the US and it is not fully accepted yet in India.
- The Indian model differs from the US in that the initiative comes from the accused, not prosecutors. It also involves courts more directly in overseeing agreements between accused and prosecutors.
-
Section 321 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure allows the public prosecutor conducting a case to withdraw from prosecution with the court's permission. This effectively stops the prosecution of the case. Key points:
- Withdrawal must be approved by the central/state government for certain serious offenses.
- It results in the accused being discharged if before charging, or acquitted if after. This bars retrial.
- Withdrawal relies on the prosecutor alone, while composition under Section 320 requires both parties' consent.
- The prosecutor must apply their mind independently and not be influenced when seeking withdrawal.
- Withdrawal is intended to further public justice, peace, security or prevent false prosecutions.
The document analyzes plea bargaining in India. It defines plea bargaining as a prosecutor and defendant negotiating a guilty plea to a lesser charge. The objectives of plea bargaining in India are to provide compensation to victims, reduce pending litigation, decrease trial delays, and reduce the number of under trials. The Law Commission of India advocated for plea bargaining in its 142nd, 154th, and 177th reports to address delays in case disposal. Plea bargaining was incorporated into Indian law to help address overburdened courts and frustration with delays in the justice system. The document discusses provisions, types, judicial pronouncements, advantages, disadvantages, and criticism of plea bargaining in India.
Plea bargaining allows an accused person to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for concessions from the prosecution. It was introduced in India through amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2005 to help reduce pending case backlogs. Plea bargaining is only permitted for offenses with maximum sentences of 7 years imprisonment that do not affect socio-economic conditions or involve crimes against women or children. The process involves negotiations between the prosecution, defense, investigating officer, victim and judge. If an agreement is reached, it is formalized in a court report and the accused is sentenced, often to a lighter punishment.
This document summarizes key aspects of criminal trial procedures in the United States, including common pretrial motions, Sixth Amendment rights of defendants, the right to a jury or bench trial, jury selection processes, rules of evidence, order of trial procedures such as opening statements and presenting the prosecution and defense cases, jury instructions, closing arguments, jury deliberations, and potential outcomes such as jury verdicts, hung juries, and jury nullification.
Plea bargaining was introduced in India in 2005 to reduce delays in the criminal justice system. It allows the accused to plead guilty in exchange for concessions from the prosecutor, such as dropping or reducing charges. It aims to expedite case disposal and reduce court burdens. However, there are concerns it could encourage corruption, undermine the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and show undue leniency towards offenders. Overall, plea bargaining is still a new concept in India and its effectiveness in reducing backlogs and potential issues still need to be fully evaluated.
This document discusses plea bargaining in the criminal justice system. It notes that over 95% of criminal cases in the US are resolved through plea bargains rather than trials. Plea bargaining can be understood through economic models of decision-making and resource allocation. While some argue plea bargains penalize the right to a fair trial, others defend the practice as an efficient way to reduce costs and allow prosecutors to allocate limited resources effectively.
Plea bargaining is a common practice in both India and the United States criminal justice systems. In India, plea bargaining was introduced in 2005 and allows negotiations for cases with maximum sentences of 7 years imprisonment, excluding certain offenses. The first plea bargaining case in India occurred in 2007. In the US, around 90% of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargains under federal and state guidelines. Plea bargains allow prosecutors to reduce charges in exchange for guilty pleas, helping to reduce court caseloads significantly. However, critics argue innocent defendants may feel pressured to accept plea bargains.
Plea bargaining and its applicability in the Indian SystemAbsar Aftab Absar
The document summarizes a presentation on plea bargaining and its applicability in the Indian criminal justice system. Some key points:
- Plea bargaining has existed for over 800 years and aims to address problems like delays, difficulty securing convictions, and reducing under-trial prisoners. It was pioneered in the US in the early 1900s.
- India introduced plea bargaining in 2006 for crimes with maximum 7 year sentences. However, its application is more restricted than in the US and it is not fully accepted yet in India.
- The Indian model differs from the US in that the initiative comes from the accused, not prosecutors. It also involves courts more directly in overseeing agreements between accused and prosecutors.
-
Section 321 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure allows the public prosecutor conducting a case to withdraw from prosecution with the court's permission. This effectively stops the prosecution of the case. Key points:
- Withdrawal must be approved by the central/state government for certain serious offenses.
- It results in the accused being discharged if before charging, or acquitted if after. This bars retrial.
- Withdrawal relies on the prosecutor alone, while composition under Section 320 requires both parties' consent.
- The prosecutor must apply their mind independently and not be influenced when seeking withdrawal.
- Withdrawal is intended to further public justice, peace, security or prevent false prosecutions.
The document analyzes plea bargaining in India. It defines plea bargaining as a prosecutor and defendant negotiating a guilty plea to a lesser charge. The objectives of plea bargaining in India are to provide compensation to victims, reduce pending litigation, decrease trial delays, and reduce the number of under trials. The Law Commission of India advocated for plea bargaining in its 142nd, 154th, and 177th reports to address delays in case disposal. Plea bargaining was incorporated into Indian law to help address overburdened courts and frustration with delays in the justice system. The document discusses provisions, types, judicial pronouncements, advantages, disadvantages, and criticism of plea bargaining in India.
Plea bargaining allows an accused person to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for concessions from the prosecution. It was introduced in India through amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2005 to help reduce pending case backlogs. Plea bargaining is only permitted for offenses with maximum sentences of 7 years imprisonment that do not affect socio-economic conditions or involve crimes against women or children. The process involves negotiations between the prosecution, defense, investigating officer, victim and judge. If an agreement is reached, it is formalized in a court report and the accused is sentenced, often to a lighter punishment.
This document summarizes key aspects of criminal trial procedures in the United States, including common pretrial motions, Sixth Amendment rights of defendants, the right to a jury or bench trial, jury selection processes, rules of evidence, order of trial procedures such as opening statements and presenting the prosecution and defense cases, jury instructions, closing arguments, jury deliberations, and potential outcomes such as jury verdicts, hung juries, and jury nullification.
Plea bargaining was introduced in India in 2005 to reduce delays in the criminal justice system. It allows the accused to plead guilty in exchange for concessions from the prosecutor, such as dropping or reducing charges. It aims to expedite case disposal and reduce court burdens. However, there are concerns it could encourage corruption, undermine the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and show undue leniency towards offenders. Overall, plea bargaining is still a new concept in India and its effectiveness in reducing backlogs and potential issues still need to be fully evaluated.
This document discusses plea bargaining in the criminal justice system. It notes that over 95% of criminal cases in the US are resolved through plea bargains rather than trials. Plea bargaining can be understood through economic models of decision-making and resource allocation. While some argue plea bargains penalize the right to a fair trial, others defend the practice as an efficient way to reduce costs and allow prosecutors to allocate limited resources effectively.
Plea bargaining is a common practice in both India and the United States criminal justice systems. In India, plea bargaining was introduced in 2005 and allows negotiations for cases with maximum sentences of 7 years imprisonment, excluding certain offenses. The first plea bargaining case in India occurred in 2007. In the US, around 90% of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargains under federal and state guidelines. Plea bargains allow prosecutors to reduce charges in exchange for guilty pleas, helping to reduce court caseloads significantly. However, critics argue innocent defendants may feel pressured to accept plea bargains.
This report summarizes the findings of research conducted in Ireland on pre-trial detention practices. The research involved observing 91 bail hearings over 6 months. It found that judges ordered pre-trial detention in 44% of cases. Bail with conditions was granted in 48% of cases. There was found to be both an overuse of bail conditions and a lack of monitoring of those conditions by Gardaí. No cases were observed where bail was granted without any conditions. The report recommends that Gardaí receive more training on bail law and only request necessary conditions. It also calls for judges to provide individualized, proportionate reasoning for any bail conditions imposed.
Federal Rules of Evidence Restyled, December 1, 2011 "PowerPoint"Litig8or
The document discusses the copyright policies of the Legal Information Institute (LII) and an editor, Garrett Cutler. It states that the LII and Cutler do not assert copyright over US government works but do claim copyright over any value-added content they provide. This content is covered by a Creative Commons license allowing copying and distribution with attribution, non-commercial use, and sharing under the same license. It also provides conditions of use noting the information is not legal advice and no warranty is made regarding accuracy or completeness.
The document provides an overview of plea bargaining in India. It defines plea bargaining as negotiations between the accused and prosecution where the accused pleads guilty in exchange for concessions. Plea bargaining originated in the US in the 1970s and was introduced in India based on the doctrine of nolo contendere. The document outlines the process for plea bargaining applications in India, including eligibility, contents of applications, procedures, and sentencing guidelines. It also discusses past opposition to plea bargaining in India and exceptions where it is not permitted.
This document discusses plea bargaining in India. It provides background on plea bargaining, including how it emerged to help reduce court backlogs and expedite case resolutions. It describes different types of plea bargains, such as charge bargaining, fact bargaining, and sentence bargaining. The document also discusses some Supreme Court cases related to plea bargaining and notes some benefits and drawbacks of the practice in India. Overall, it provides a comprehensive overview of plea bargaining in the Indian legal system.
Section 482 of the CrPC gives High Courts broad inherent powers over criminal justice administration. It allows High Courts to pass orders to secure the ends of justice, even where no specific provision exists under the CrPC. These powers include quashing FIRs, investigations, or criminal proceedings. The powers aim to prevent abuse of court processes and ensure justice. Case law has established contexts where these powers can be exercised, such as when proceedings amount to harassment or there is a legal bar. However, High Courts cannot interfere at interlocutory stages normally or when other remedies exist. The section balances administrative powers with securing justice.
Appeals under Code of Civil Procedure India, 1908Shantanu Basu
This document provides an overview of appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It discusses the definition of an appeal, the procedure for first appeals and second appeals to higher courts under the CPC. It explains what constitutes a "substantial question of law" for purposes of a second appeal. It also discusses limitations on the powers of appellate courts, such as that the High Court cannot interfere with factual findings of the lower courts. The document classifies what types of issues would and would not constitute a "substantial question of law."
Plea bargaining allows a defendant to plead guilty in exchange for concessions from the prosecution. It has been introduced in India to help reduce case backlogs. Key points of plea bargaining under Indian law include: it does not apply to offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment or over 7 years; or offenses affecting socioeconomics or committed against women or children under 14. The court will facilitate negotiations between the prosecution and defendant to reach a mutually agreeable disposition involving compensation and sentencing concessions. If accepted by the court, the judgment is final and not appealable except through special leave. Plea bargaining aims to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to expedite case disposal in India.
Decision to Prosecute (Criminal procedure in Kenya)Quincy Kiptoo
This document outlines factors for prosecutors to consider when deciding whether to institute a prosecution against an individual. It discusses that the decision to prosecute is important and must be well-founded. Prosecutors must apply an evidentiary test to determine if there is enough evidence to support a credible prosecution. They must also apply a public interest test to consider factors like the seriousness of the offense, interests of victims and communities, and circumstances of the offender. The prosecutor's discretion must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and with regard for public interest, interests of justice, and preventing abuse of the legal process.
Plea-bargaining allows an accused person to plead guilty in exchange for concessions from the prosecution. It was introduced in India to reduce court backlogs and prison overcrowding. Plea-bargaining involves negotiations between the prosecution and defense on charges, sentences, or facts. While it provides benefits, there are also concerns it may violate rights or result in unfairly lenient sentences. Indian courts have examined plea-bargaining but taken a cautious approach to its implementation and application.
Presentation: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | Breaking Down the New Amendm...Zapproved
The document summarizes proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to e-discovery and preservation obligations. It provides an overview of the key proposed changes, including promoting early case management, proportionality in discovery, and clarifying standards for curative measures and sanctions for failure to preserve electronically stored information. The document also summarizes perspectives on the implications of the changes and additional resources for further information.
Section 482 of the CrPC grants High Courts inherent powers to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of legal process. [1] It allows High Courts to quash criminal proceedings that amount to harassment or where there is no prima facie offense. [2] The powers are wide but must be used cautiously and not to interfere with legitimate prosecution. [3] High Courts can exercise these powers at any stage of proceedings under Section 482 to prevent injustice.
The document summarizes recent cases related to the legal concept of unreasonableness in administrative decision making. It discusses Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li, a rare case where a decision was invalidated solely on the grounds of unreasonableness. The document outlines key principles from the case, including that decisions must have an evident and intelligible justification. It also summarizes other recent cases and implications for decision makers, advising them to ensure decisions are reasonable and proportionate given the applicable statutory provisions.
The document discusses the scope of powers granted to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It provides that the section gives the court powers that it already inherently possesses. The powers must be exercised sparingly and not for appellate or revisional purposes. The document outlines several principles for using this power, including to prevent abuse of court processes or otherwise secure justice. It also discusses situations where the High Court may quash an FIR or complaint using these powers, such as when allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense.
Discussion of Jurisdiction of Article 136 of Constitution of India
Why, where and when to approach Supreme Court
Right of litigant after judgment passed by High Court
This document outlines the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 in India. It defines contempt of court as either civil contempt, which includes willful disobedience of a court order, or criminal contempt, which includes acts that scandalize or interfere with the court. It establishes that publishing a fair report of judicial proceedings is not contempt, nor is fair criticism of a judicial act after it is decided. It also provides exceptions for innocent publication of matters not known to interfere with proceedings, and allows complaints about lower court judges to higher courts.
This document outlines two main methods that individuals can use to challenge decisions made about prosecuting them: 1) constitutional reference to the High Court, and 2) judicial review seeking orders to quash or prohibit prosecution. It discusses factors a court will consider, such as whether the prosecution constitutes an abuse of process or violates constitutional rights. It also notes that while stays can be granted, legislative intervention may be needed to avoid stays clogging the justice system.
The civil proceeding in Bangladesh in an adversarial system which means the whole process is a contest between two parties, namely, plaintiff and defendant. The court plays non partisan role. Civil proceedings is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The various stages of Civil proceeding may be discussed under the following heads:
a) Pre-trial stage
b) Trial stage
c) Post Trial stage
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether filing an appeal automatically stays the execution of a High Court judgment.
(1) The case involved a land dispute between two brothers that was determined by a Magistrate's Court and then revised by the High Court. The petitioner appealed the High Court's judgment to the Court of Appeal.
(2) There were conflicting views on whether an appeal automatically stays execution. The Court examined this issue and relevant precedents. It determined that under the Primary Courts Procedure Act, an appeal does not automatically stay execution of a High Court judgment issued in revision of a determination under the Act.
(3) The Court found the prior cases relied too heavily on applic
Performance Analysis of Dispersion Compensation in Long Haul Optical Fiber u...theijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The Study of Impact Damage on C-Type and E-Type of Fibreglass Subjected To Lo...theijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
This report summarizes the findings of research conducted in Ireland on pre-trial detention practices. The research involved observing 91 bail hearings over 6 months. It found that judges ordered pre-trial detention in 44% of cases. Bail with conditions was granted in 48% of cases. There was found to be both an overuse of bail conditions and a lack of monitoring of those conditions by Gardaí. No cases were observed where bail was granted without any conditions. The report recommends that Gardaí receive more training on bail law and only request necessary conditions. It also calls for judges to provide individualized, proportionate reasoning for any bail conditions imposed.
Federal Rules of Evidence Restyled, December 1, 2011 "PowerPoint"Litig8or
The document discusses the copyright policies of the Legal Information Institute (LII) and an editor, Garrett Cutler. It states that the LII and Cutler do not assert copyright over US government works but do claim copyright over any value-added content they provide. This content is covered by a Creative Commons license allowing copying and distribution with attribution, non-commercial use, and sharing under the same license. It also provides conditions of use noting the information is not legal advice and no warranty is made regarding accuracy or completeness.
The document provides an overview of plea bargaining in India. It defines plea bargaining as negotiations between the accused and prosecution where the accused pleads guilty in exchange for concessions. Plea bargaining originated in the US in the 1970s and was introduced in India based on the doctrine of nolo contendere. The document outlines the process for plea bargaining applications in India, including eligibility, contents of applications, procedures, and sentencing guidelines. It also discusses past opposition to plea bargaining in India and exceptions where it is not permitted.
This document discusses plea bargaining in India. It provides background on plea bargaining, including how it emerged to help reduce court backlogs and expedite case resolutions. It describes different types of plea bargains, such as charge bargaining, fact bargaining, and sentence bargaining. The document also discusses some Supreme Court cases related to plea bargaining and notes some benefits and drawbacks of the practice in India. Overall, it provides a comprehensive overview of plea bargaining in the Indian legal system.
Section 482 of the CrPC gives High Courts broad inherent powers over criminal justice administration. It allows High Courts to pass orders to secure the ends of justice, even where no specific provision exists under the CrPC. These powers include quashing FIRs, investigations, or criminal proceedings. The powers aim to prevent abuse of court processes and ensure justice. Case law has established contexts where these powers can be exercised, such as when proceedings amount to harassment or there is a legal bar. However, High Courts cannot interfere at interlocutory stages normally or when other remedies exist. The section balances administrative powers with securing justice.
Appeals under Code of Civil Procedure India, 1908Shantanu Basu
This document provides an overview of appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India. It discusses the definition of an appeal, the procedure for first appeals and second appeals to higher courts under the CPC. It explains what constitutes a "substantial question of law" for purposes of a second appeal. It also discusses limitations on the powers of appellate courts, such as that the High Court cannot interfere with factual findings of the lower courts. The document classifies what types of issues would and would not constitute a "substantial question of law."
Plea bargaining allows a defendant to plead guilty in exchange for concessions from the prosecution. It has been introduced in India to help reduce case backlogs. Key points of plea bargaining under Indian law include: it does not apply to offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment or over 7 years; or offenses affecting socioeconomics or committed against women or children under 14. The court will facilitate negotiations between the prosecution and defendant to reach a mutually agreeable disposition involving compensation and sentencing concessions. If accepted by the court, the judgment is final and not appealable except through special leave. Plea bargaining aims to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to expedite case disposal in India.
Decision to Prosecute (Criminal procedure in Kenya)Quincy Kiptoo
This document outlines factors for prosecutors to consider when deciding whether to institute a prosecution against an individual. It discusses that the decision to prosecute is important and must be well-founded. Prosecutors must apply an evidentiary test to determine if there is enough evidence to support a credible prosecution. They must also apply a public interest test to consider factors like the seriousness of the offense, interests of victims and communities, and circumstances of the offender. The prosecutor's discretion must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and with regard for public interest, interests of justice, and preventing abuse of the legal process.
Plea-bargaining allows an accused person to plead guilty in exchange for concessions from the prosecution. It was introduced in India to reduce court backlogs and prison overcrowding. Plea-bargaining involves negotiations between the prosecution and defense on charges, sentences, or facts. While it provides benefits, there are also concerns it may violate rights or result in unfairly lenient sentences. Indian courts have examined plea-bargaining but taken a cautious approach to its implementation and application.
Presentation: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | Breaking Down the New Amendm...Zapproved
The document summarizes proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to e-discovery and preservation obligations. It provides an overview of the key proposed changes, including promoting early case management, proportionality in discovery, and clarifying standards for curative measures and sanctions for failure to preserve electronically stored information. The document also summarizes perspectives on the implications of the changes and additional resources for further information.
Section 482 of the CrPC grants High Courts inherent powers to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of legal process. [1] It allows High Courts to quash criminal proceedings that amount to harassment or where there is no prima facie offense. [2] The powers are wide but must be used cautiously and not to interfere with legitimate prosecution. [3] High Courts can exercise these powers at any stage of proceedings under Section 482 to prevent injustice.
The document summarizes recent cases related to the legal concept of unreasonableness in administrative decision making. It discusses Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li, a rare case where a decision was invalidated solely on the grounds of unreasonableness. The document outlines key principles from the case, including that decisions must have an evident and intelligible justification. It also summarizes other recent cases and implications for decision makers, advising them to ensure decisions are reasonable and proportionate given the applicable statutory provisions.
The document discusses the scope of powers granted to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It provides that the section gives the court powers that it already inherently possesses. The powers must be exercised sparingly and not for appellate or revisional purposes. The document outlines several principles for using this power, including to prevent abuse of court processes or otherwise secure justice. It also discusses situations where the High Court may quash an FIR or complaint using these powers, such as when allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense.
Discussion of Jurisdiction of Article 136 of Constitution of India
Why, where and when to approach Supreme Court
Right of litigant after judgment passed by High Court
This document outlines the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 in India. It defines contempt of court as either civil contempt, which includes willful disobedience of a court order, or criminal contempt, which includes acts that scandalize or interfere with the court. It establishes that publishing a fair report of judicial proceedings is not contempt, nor is fair criticism of a judicial act after it is decided. It also provides exceptions for innocent publication of matters not known to interfere with proceedings, and allows complaints about lower court judges to higher courts.
This document outlines two main methods that individuals can use to challenge decisions made about prosecuting them: 1) constitutional reference to the High Court, and 2) judicial review seeking orders to quash or prohibit prosecution. It discusses factors a court will consider, such as whether the prosecution constitutes an abuse of process or violates constitutional rights. It also notes that while stays can be granted, legislative intervention may be needed to avoid stays clogging the justice system.
The civil proceeding in Bangladesh in an adversarial system which means the whole process is a contest between two parties, namely, plaintiff and defendant. The court plays non partisan role. Civil proceedings is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The various stages of Civil proceeding may be discussed under the following heads:
a) Pre-trial stage
b) Trial stage
c) Post Trial stage
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether filing an appeal automatically stays the execution of a High Court judgment.
(1) The case involved a land dispute between two brothers that was determined by a Magistrate's Court and then revised by the High Court. The petitioner appealed the High Court's judgment to the Court of Appeal.
(2) There were conflicting views on whether an appeal automatically stays execution. The Court examined this issue and relevant precedents. It determined that under the Primary Courts Procedure Act, an appeal does not automatically stay execution of a High Court judgment issued in revision of a determination under the Act.
(3) The Court found the prior cases relied too heavily on applic
Performance Analysis of Dispersion Compensation in Long Haul Optical Fiber u...theijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The Study of Impact Damage on C-Type and E-Type of Fibreglass Subjected To Lo...theijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
This document analyzes the embedded energy of on-farm losses and energy flow for maize production in Nigeria. The total energy input for maize production was estimated at 9,502 MJ/ha, with fertilizer accounting for 58% of energy use. The total energy output was 33,510 MJ/ha. The embedded energy in on-farm maize losses for 2000-2012 was estimated at 6,816 MJ, with losses highest in 2012 at 1,995 MJ. Improving efficiency could help reduce energy losses from wasted maize.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
Comparative Analysis of low area and low power D Flip-Flop for Different Logi...theijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
Theoretical work submitted to the Journal should be original in its motivation or modeling structure. Empirical analysis should be based on a theoretical framework and should be capable of replication. It is expected that all materials required for replication (including computer programs and data sets) should be available upon request to the authors.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
Advanced Embedded Automatic Car Parking Systemtheijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
Characterization of the Mechanical Properties of Aluminium Alloys with SiC Di...theijes
The document summarizes a study that characterized the mechanical properties of aluminum alloys with silicon carbide (SiC) dispersants. Samples of aluminum reinforced with 0%, 5%, 15%, and 25% SiC by volume were produced by stir casting and annealed. Testing showed that increasing SiC content increased tensile strength and hardness but reduced ductility. The ultimate tensile strength increased from 90 MPa for the unreinforced sample to 153 MPa for the 25% reinforced sample. Hardness increased from 25 to 48 Rockwell hardness with more SiC, while ductility decreased from 40% to under 4% elongation.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
Theoretical work submitted to the Journal should be original in its motivation or modeling structure. Empirical analysis should be based on a theoretical framework and should be capable of replication. It is expected that all materials required for replication (including computer programs and data sets) should be available upon request to the authors.
Soil fertility improvement by Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A Gray and its e...theijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
An Experimental Study of Low Velocity Impact (Lvi) On Fibre Glass Reinforced ...theijes
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The International Journal of Engineering & Science is aimed at providing a platform for researchers, engineers, scientists, or educators to publish their original research results, to exchange new ideas, to disseminate information in innovative designs, engineering experiences and technological skills. It is also the Journal's objective to promote engineering and technology education. All papers submitted to the Journal will be blind peer-reviewed. Only original articles will be published.
The papers for publication in The International Journal of Engineering& Science are selected through rigorous peer reviews to ensure originality, timeliness, relevance, and readability.
Theoretical work submitted to the Journal should be original in its motivation or modeling structure. Empirical analysis should be based on a theoretical framework and should be capable of replication. It is expected that all materials required for replication (including computer programs and data sets) should be available upon request to the authors.
American Government P5IP instructionsThe instructor has returned.docxgalerussel59292
American Government P5IP instructions
The instructor has returned your Week 4 Individual Project Key Assignment with comments and suggestions on how to improve your overall draft.
[Instructors’ Comments: Overview of selected Constitutional Amendment (38/38). Demonstrates a clear understanding of the need being addressed. The types of crimes to be addressed by the proposed policy (10/15): Minimal effort; does not demonstrate comprehension; missing relevant information. Specific constitutional rights to be upheld (12/22): Minimal effort; does not demonstrate comprehension; missing relevant information. The rationale for the proposed policy (12/23): Minimal effort; does not demonstrate comprehension; missing relevant information. How should the proposed policy be evaluated (11/30). Minimal effort; does not demonstrate comprehension; missing relevant information. Mechanics (15/15). Document organization (7/7). Demonstrates a clear understanding of the document organization. You did a very good job in discussing your chosen amendments and the purpose of each amendment. In addition, you accurately discussed who each amendment affects and why each amendment is important, and how each amendment. You did not complete the second part of the assignment, in which you were to discuss what type of policy you believe would need to be implemented for police investigators when interrogating a suspect. However, you did not provide any discussion regarding this matter. You were to determine what your ideal policy would be. For example, if you believed that the current Miranda policy was sufficient to address issues with police interrogations you would then discuss the type of crimes the policy should pertain (i.e., felony, misdemeanors, or both), the specific constitutional rights that must be upheld under the policy, the rationale for the policy, and discuss how the policy should be evaluated for potential weaknesses or gaps. You are on the right track, just make sure you are responding to every question in a task and if you have any questions seek clarification.]
Assignment Guidelines
1. Revise and amend your Week 4 Key Assignment by adding/changing what your instructor commented on.
2. Address the following, and add your responses to your Key Assignment final draft:
3. Conduct an Internet search for a current foreign policy that deals with the same issue you discussed in your Week 4 Individual Project.
4. What is the name of the country?
a. What is the name of the policy in the other country?
b. What are the specific components of the policy? Explain in detail.
c. How might you evaluate the policy’s overall effectiveness? Explain.
*Must be in APA format with references.
Running head: P4IP
2
P4IP
PBAD200-1204B-01 P4IP
Colorado Technical University
Instructor: Professors Jeter
Connie Hutson
17 December 2012
Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights
The Fourth Amendment is entrenched in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's.
Explain the 12 steps of the criminal justice process doc 25.docxintel-writers.com
The criminal justice
process involves a series of steps that are followed when dealing with a criminal case. While the specific details may vary depending on jurisdiction, here is a general overview of the 12 steps involved in the criminal justice process:
Investigation: The process begins with an investigation conducted by law enforcement agencies. Evidence is gathered, witnesses are interviewed, and the facts of the case are established.
Arrest: If the evidence suggests that a crime has been committed and a specific individual is believed to be responsible, they may be arrested. The person is taken into custody by law enforcement.
Booking: After the arrest, the suspect is taken to a police station or jail for processing. This involves recording their personal information, taking fingerprints and photographs, and conducting a background check.
Initial Appearance: The suspect is brought before a judge for their initial appearance, usually within 48 hours of the arrest. During this hearing, the charges are formally presented, the defendant is informed of their rights, and bail may be set.
Bail: If bail is set, the defendant may have the opportunity to be released from custody by posting bail. This is a financial guarantee to ensure the defendant’s appearance in future court proceedings.
Grand Jury or Preliminary Hearing: In some jurisdictions, a grand jury or preliminary hearing is conducted to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. This step is not present in all cases and varies depending on the jurisdiction.
Arraignment: The defendant appears in court for the arraignment, where they are formally notified of the charges against them. They enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest. If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, the case may proceed to sentencing. If they plead not guilty, the case moves to the next step.
Discovery and Pre-trial Motions: The prosecution and defense exchange information and evidence through a process known as discovery. Pre-trial motions may also be filed by the defense, challenging the admissibility of evidence or requesting specific legal rulings.
The ability to trace assets across the world is becoming increasingly relevant to the business sphere as businesses continue to become progressively more global. As individuals and companies continue to move assets away from countries in which they are subject to dispute it is important that parties are able to trace assets across jurisdictions.
This Guide draws together contributions from tracing experts across a number of territories.
We hope you will find the Guide a useful resource for getting to grips with the framework in asset tracing law in each of these territories, safe in the knowledge that if further specialist advice is needed, it’s only a call or email away.
We are grateful to all who have taken part in and contributed to this project. The world’s second largest law firm network, with over 150 leading independent law firms spanning more than 100 jurisdictions, TerraLex provides truly global business law support. The strength of the network is built around not only the quality of its member firms and lawyers (all 19,000 of them) but also the depth of relationships – network members all know each other well, sharing best practice at regular meetings held all over the world throughout the year.
Tribunals have advantages over courts like being less expensive and more accessible. Natural justice requires fair procedures that respect participants and allow them to represent themselves. Reasons for decisions are important so people understand the reasoning and can seek reviews if needed. To avoid bias, decision-makers should not comment publicly on cases and consider if a reasonable observer would think their impartiality was affected by past associations or conduct. Context is also important in assessing potential bias.
This paper is about fact-finding procedures in Chinese criminal trials. It traces general rules setting out fact-finding procedures, and describes the roles that various legal actors that should play to ensure that they are followed properly. It will further examine how Chinese law balances the duty to determine the truth and the principle of protecting individual rights from potential infringements in criminal cases. Based on the conflicts between truth-seeking and human rights protection, this paper will conclude by discussing limitations in Chinese fact-finding procedures and will suggest how they can be mended.
Benoit Le Bars & Tejas Shiroor, Provisional Measures in Investment Arbitration: Wading Through the Murky Waters of Enforcement, 6 INDIAN J. ARB. L. 1, 27 (2017)
This document provides an overview of the key participants and processes involved in a criminal trial. It discusses the roles of police, prosecutors, judges, jurors and defendants. It also outlines several important pre-trial decisions and proceedings, such as determining bail, competency to stand trial, and plea bargaining. Finally, it describes the typical phases and procedures of a criminal trial, from jury selection to closing arguments and deliberation.
This document provides an overview of the key participants and processes involved in a criminal trial. It discusses the roles of police, prosecutors, judges, jurors and defendants. It also outlines several important pre-trial decisions and proceedings, such as determining bail, competency to stand trial, and plea bargaining. Finally, it describes the typical structure and sequence of a criminal trial, from jury selection to closing arguments and deliberation.
This document outlines the key elements required for an effective legal system, focusing on court processes and procedures. It discusses three essential elements: (1) fair and unbiased hearings, (2) access to dispute resolution mechanisms such as courts and tribunals, and (3) timely resolution of disputes. For each element, it provides details on what they entail and why they are important to ensure justice and fairness. The document also examines strategies to address delays in the court system and challenges in achieving the elements of an effective legal system.
This document outlines the key elements required for an effective legal system, focusing on court processes and procedures. It discusses three essential elements: (1) fair and unbiased hearings, (2) access to dispute resolution mechanisms such as courts and tribunals, and (3) timely resolution of disputes. For each element, it provides details on what they entail and why they are important for a functioning legal system. The document also examines strategies to address delays in courts and evaluates the contribution of processes and procedures to the effectiveness of the Australian legal system.
This document outlines the key elements and objectives of an effective legal system according to an Australian law course, including providing:
1. A fair and unbiased hearing for all parties with impartial arbitrators and consistent application of rules of evidence and procedure.
2. Effective access to dispute resolution mechanisms like courts, tribunals, and alternative dispute resolution in a timely manner so individuals can quickly and cheaply resolve issues.
3. Timely resolution of both criminal and civil disputes to avoid excessive delays that increase costs and diminish witness memories or leave parties' lives "on hold" while waiting. Strategies to reduce delays include additional funding, pilot programs, and allowing lower courts to handle more cases.
This document outlines the key elements required for an effective legal system:
1) Fair and unbiased hearings where all parties are treated equally and impartially with strict rules of evidence and procedure.
2) Effective access to dispute resolution mechanisms like courts and tribunals in a timely manner so that individuals can quickly and cheaply resolve disputes.
3) Timely resolution of both criminal and civil disputes so that cases do not face excessive delays which can increase costs and diminish witness memories over time. Strategies to reduce delays include additional funding, pilot programs, and allowing lower courts to handle more cases.
SC on Live -streaming of Court proceedingssabrangsabrang
This document discusses petitions seeking live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional importance that impact the public. It acknowledges that open trials are important to uphold legitimacy and public confidence in courts. However, it also notes there may be situations requiring in-camera proceedings. It orders the Attorney General to submit a framework for live streaming certain cases while maintaining appropriate restrictions. The document balances open access with privacy needs, directing further consultation on a regulatory system before implementing live streaming broadly.
Proposed rules on hearing & adjudicating disputesHarve Abella
The proposed rules seek to streamline civil procedures in Philippine lower courts to address case backlogs and delays. Specifically:
1) Cases will have only two mandatory hearings - a preliminary conference to identify issues and ensure submission of evidence, and an adjudication hearing where witnesses are examined and a decision is rendered within 15 days.
2) Motions that could delay hearings on the merits are prohibited, such as motions to dismiss or for reconsideration.
3) Pleadings are streamlined, requiring only a verified complaint stating the facts of the case and any violations. Answers must specifically deny allegations or state affirmative defenses.
The document discusses Canada's dangerous offender legislation and long-term offender designation. It provides an overview of the legislative framework, purposes of the criminal law, sentencing process, and amendments made to the legislation in 1997 which created the long-term offender designation and required indeterminate sentences for dangerous offenders. It also discusses issues around the adversarial system, public pressure, and an expert's role in these proceedings.
The document provides an overview of the Indian legal system for entrepreneurs, covering topics such as the types of presumptions in law, evidence in legal cases, arbitration and conciliation processes, injunctions, contracts, property law concepts, criminal law procedures, and registration requirements. It defines key legal terms and concepts and compares different legal classifications and processes.
This document summarizes rules regarding candor toward the tribunal for lawyers engaged in litigation. It discusses Model Rule 4-3.3, which prohibits lawyers from making false statements to a tribunal or offering false evidence. The rule requires lawyers to remedy any false statements or evidence that they later learn are not true. It also discusses the duty to disclose adverse legal authority to the tribunal. Scenarios are provided to illustrate how the rules apply in different situations involving potential client perjury or failure to correct false prior statements to the court.
This document discusses various topics related to administrative law and advocacy at tribunals. It begins by summarizing a Jerry Seinfeld quote about lawyers knowing the rules. It then discusses factors legislatures consider when setting up government agencies, such as the agency's mission and structure. The document outlines the choices legislatures make regarding rulemaking agencies, adjudicative agencies, and policymaking agencies. It provides examples of specific agencies in different categories. The document provides tips for advocates representing clients before agencies, such as determining applicable laws and deadlines, and preparing evidence and witnesses. It stresses preparation, using presentation skills, and focusing on important issues. The document cautions against antagonizing or misleading tribunals. Finally, it discusses different
CHAPTER 8 The TrialIntroductionFirst live, nat.docxtiffanyd4
CHAPTER 8
The Trial
IntroductionFirst live, nationally televised trial in the United States occurred in 1991William Kennedy SmithAllowed public to watch entire trial process from jury selection through verdict
Until then, public’s beliefs about trial process based on fictional TV trials
The Trial Process
Pretrial MotionsWritten or oral requests to the judge
Ask judge to make a ruling or order that action be taken in favor of the applicant
Made before opening statements or presentation of evidence
Types of MotionsDismissal of chargesNolle prosequi
Change of venue
Severance of defendants
Severance of charges
DiscoveryBill of particulars
Suppression of evidence
Intention to provide an alibi
Determination of competency
Continuance
The Right to a Speedy, Public, and Fair TrialSixth Amendment:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”
Key questions:How soon after arrest must a trial be held?How much access should the public have?How do we ensure that the jury is untainted by prejudice?
The Right to a Speedy Trial“Justice delayed is justice denied”
Seriousness of charge has the greatest influence on length of case processing
Defining the Limits of a Speedy TrialFederal/state governments have established rules limiting time between arrest and trial
Barker v. Wingo – continuances do not necessarily infringe defendant’s right to speedy trial
Speedy trial rules only affect time between arrest and start of trial
The Courts, the Public, and the PressSixth Amendment guarantees right to a public trialIntended to ensure that accused is treated fairly by government by giving public full access to information regarding proceedingsDoes not define what makes a trial “public”
Public trial means one that the public is free to attendLimits on number of people allowed/required determined by courtroom size
Public TrialsPublic’s right to attendGannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale: public and press could be barred from pretrial hearingsCourt has ruled that press and public should not be excluded from jury selection stage
Freedom of press and pretrial publicityGag orders may be issued by judges in high-profile casesPrior restraint should be used only when absolutely necessaryClear threat to the fairness of trialThreat is posed by the publicity to be restrainedNo less restrictive alternatives are available
Cameras in the CourtroomFlorida first let TV cameras into courts in 1977
All 50 states have rules permitting cameras in courts under certain circumstances
Congress considering legislation that would permit cameras in all federal courts
Bench Trial Versus Jury TrialAbout 80% of defendants convicted at trial are convicted by juries, 20% convicted in bench trial
Reasons to waive jury trialCrime is so heinousUnusual appearance of defendantExcessive media coverageCase is too complexAttorney fees may be lower
Constitutional Right to a Trial JurySixth Amendment guaran.
Programming Foundation Models with DSPy - Meetup SlidesZilliz
Prompting language models is hard, while programming language models is easy. In this talk, I will discuss the state-of-the-art framework DSPy for programming foundation models with its powerful optimizers and runtime constraint system.
Things to Consider When Choosing a Website Developer for your Website | FODUUFODUU
Choosing the right website developer is crucial for your business. This article covers essential factors to consider, including experience, portfolio, technical skills, communication, pricing, reputation & reviews, cost and budget considerations and post-launch support. Make an informed decision to ensure your website meets your business goals.
In his public lecture, Christian Timmerer provides insights into the fascinating history of video streaming, starting from its humble beginnings before YouTube to the groundbreaking technologies that now dominate platforms like Netflix and ORF ON. Timmerer also presents provocative contributions of his own that have significantly influenced the industry. He concludes by looking at future challenges and invites the audience to join in a discussion.
Driving Business Innovation: Latest Generative AI Advancements & Success StorySafe Software
Are you ready to revolutionize how you handle data? Join us for a webinar where we’ll bring you up to speed with the latest advancements in Generative AI technology and discover how leveraging FME with tools from giants like Google Gemini, Amazon, and Microsoft OpenAI can supercharge your workflow efficiency.
During the hour, we’ll take you through:
Guest Speaker Segment with Hannah Barrington: Dive into the world of dynamic real estate marketing with Hannah, the Marketing Manager at Workspace Group. Hear firsthand how their team generates engaging descriptions for thousands of office units by integrating diverse data sources—from PDF floorplans to web pages—using FME transformers, like OpenAIVisionConnector and AnthropicVisionConnector. This use case will show you how GenAI can streamline content creation for marketing across the board.
Ollama Use Case: Learn how Scenario Specialist Dmitri Bagh has utilized Ollama within FME to input data, create custom models, and enhance security protocols. This segment will include demos to illustrate the full capabilities of FME in AI-driven processes.
Custom AI Models: Discover how to leverage FME to build personalized AI models using your data. Whether it’s populating a model with local data for added security or integrating public AI tools, find out how FME facilitates a versatile and secure approach to AI.
We’ll wrap up with a live Q&A session where you can engage with our experts on your specific use cases, and learn more about optimizing your data workflows with AI.
This webinar is ideal for professionals seeking to harness the power of AI within their data management systems while ensuring high levels of customization and security. Whether you're a novice or an expert, gain actionable insights and strategies to elevate your data processes. Join us to see how FME and AI can revolutionize how you work with data!
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 6DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 6. In this session, we will cover Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI webinar offers an in-depth exploration of leveraging cutting-edge technologies for test automation within the UiPath platform. Attendees will delve into the integration of generative AI, a test automation solution, with Open AI advanced natural language processing capabilities.
Throughout the session, participants will discover how this synergy empowers testers to automate repetitive tasks, enhance testing accuracy, and expedite the software testing life cycle. Topics covered include the seamless integration process, practical use cases, and the benefits of harnessing AI-driven automation for UiPath testing initiatives. By attending this webinar, testers, and automation professionals can gain valuable insights into harnessing the power of AI to optimize their test automation workflows within the UiPath ecosystem, ultimately driving efficiency and quality in software development processes.
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into integrating generative AI.
2. Understanding how this integration enhances test automation within the UiPath platform
3. Practical demonstrations
4. Exploration of real-world use cases illustrating the benefits of AI-driven test automation for UiPath
Topics covered:
What is generative AI
Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath integration with generative AI
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Best 20 SEO Techniques To Improve Website Visibility In SERPPixlogix Infotech
Boost your website's visibility with proven SEO techniques! Our latest blog dives into essential strategies to enhance your online presence, increase traffic, and rank higher on search engines. From keyword optimization to quality content creation, learn how to make your site stand out in the crowded digital landscape. Discover actionable tips and expert insights to elevate your SEO game.
AI 101: An Introduction to the Basics and Impact of Artificial IntelligenceIndexBug
Imagine a world where machines not only perform tasks but also learn, adapt, and make decisions. This is the promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a technology that's not just enhancing our lives but revolutionizing entire industries.
CAKE: Sharing Slices of Confidential Data on BlockchainClaudio Di Ciccio
Presented at the CAiSE 2024 Forum, Intelligent Information Systems, June 6th, Limassol, Cyprus.
Synopsis: Cooperative information systems typically involve various entities in a collaborative process within a distributed environment. Blockchain technology offers a mechanism for automating such processes, even when only partial trust exists among participants. The data stored on the blockchain is replicated across all nodes in the network, ensuring accessibility to all participants. While this aspect facilitates traceability, integrity, and persistence, it poses challenges for adopting public blockchains in enterprise settings due to confidentiality issues. In this paper, we present a software tool named Control Access via Key Encryption (CAKE), designed to ensure data confidentiality in scenarios involving public blockchains. After outlining its core components and functionalities, we showcase the application of CAKE in the context of a real-world cyber-security project within the logistics domain.
Paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61000-4_16
Infrastructure Challenges in Scaling RAG with Custom AI modelsZilliz
Building Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems with open-source and custom AI models is a complex task. This talk explores the challenges in productionizing RAG systems, including retrieval performance, response synthesis, and evaluation. We’ll discuss how to leverage open-source models like text embeddings, language models, and custom fine-tuned models to enhance RAG performance. Additionally, we’ll cover how BentoML can help orchestrate and scale these AI components efficiently, ensuring seamless deployment and management of RAG systems in the cloud.
Unlocking Productivity: Leveraging the Potential of Copilot in Microsoft 365, a presentation by Christoforos Vlachos, Senior Solutions Manager – Modern Workplace, Uni Systems
Unlock the Future of Search with MongoDB Atlas_ Vector Search Unleashed.pdfMalak Abu Hammad
Discover how MongoDB Atlas and vector search technology can revolutionize your application's search capabilities. This comprehensive presentation covers:
* What is Vector Search?
* Importance and benefits of vector search
* Practical use cases across various industries
* Step-by-step implementation guide
* Live demos with code snippets
* Enhancing LLM capabilities with vector search
* Best practices and optimization strategies
Perfect for developers, AI enthusiasts, and tech leaders. Learn how to leverage MongoDB Atlas to deliver highly relevant, context-aware search results, transforming your data retrieval process. Stay ahead in tech innovation and maximize the potential of your applications.
#MongoDB #VectorSearch #AI #SemanticSearch #TechInnovation #DataScience #LLM #MachineLearning #SearchTechnology
TrustArc Webinar - 2024 Global Privacy SurveyTrustArc
How does your privacy program stack up against your peers? What challenges are privacy teams tackling and prioritizing in 2024?
In the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey, we asked over 1,800 global privacy professionals and business executives to share their perspectives on the current state of privacy inside and outside of their organizations. This year’s report focused on emerging areas of importance for privacy and compliance professionals, including considerations and implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, building brand trust, and different approaches for achieving higher privacy competence scores.
See how organizational priorities and strategic approaches to data security and privacy are evolving around the globe.
This webinar will review:
- The top 10 privacy insights from the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey
- The top challenges for privacy leaders, practitioners, and organizations in 2024
- Key themes to consider in developing and maintaining your privacy program
20240605 QFM017 Machine Intelligence Reading List May 2024
Bail Decision Support System
1. The International Journal Of Engineering And Science (IJES)
|| Volume || 3 || Issue || 8 || Pages || 45-66 || 2014 ||
ISSN (e): 2319 – 1813 ISSN (p): 2319 – 1805
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 45
Bail Decision Support System
Onyeka Uche Ofili
-------------------------------------------------------------ABSTRACT--------------------------------------------------------
This paper is an improvement on previous work especially the work done by Patricia Hassett It has a more expended scope and suggests new technological tools and designs for the bail decision support system. It adapts lessons from effort made in decision support systems for the sentencing domain. And it incorporates new technological developments such as the neural network into the design of a comprehensive decision support system for the bail domain. The end result is a robust and novel bail decision support system design, with detailed systems and user requirements. The decision support system as proposed in this paper should be built on open architecture, should be easily upgradeable, should have a simple interface, built on web technology and easy to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 04 August 2014 Date of Publication: 15 August 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
Even though bail decisions seem an obvious choice for decision support systems considering its size (it is a domain that is not too broad) and the challenges it has faced in the past and in recent times, there is yet to be robust computer software designed for this purpose. Some of these challenges include; the very limited time within which a bail decision maker has to reach a decision, wide disparity in bail decisions for similar cases and lastly lack of documentation of the proceedings and outcome of bail decisions. 1
Notable among the previous efforts in developing support systems in this domain is the work by Patricia Hassett [1992]2. She developed a prototype bail decision support system focused on addressing the concern of failure to reappear for summary offences punishable by imprisonment up to six months. Her effort, which although was a prototype, was not implemented. This may not be unconnected to the often misalignment between academic researchers in the area of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and law and front-line practitioners. It could also be that society was not ready for adoption and application of such technology in the bail domain at the time.
This dissertation will attempt to improve on the work done by Patricia Hassett by expanding the scope and suggesting new technological tools and designs for the bail decision support system. It will aim to adapt lessons from effort made in decision support systems for the sentencing domain. And also try to incorporate new technological developments such as the neural network into the design of a comprehensive decision support system for the bail domain. The end result is a robust and novel bail decision support system design, with detailed systems and user requirements.
Section 2.0 of this paper looks at an overview of bail decision support system; meaning of bail, breach of bail and the challenges the bail system is facing. Section 3.0 analyses some existing sentencing decision support systems and how they can be used to model a bail decision support system. Section 4.0 looks at the risks involved in making bail decisions, and subsequently proposes a sound structure and design for bail decision support system (BDSS). The paper finally concludes in section 5.0.
II. OVERVIEW OF BAIL SYSTEM
In developing a BDSS it is imperative that one understands the bail system including the bail process, the requisite laws, the consequences of breaching bail and the challenges facing the bail system.
1 P. Hassett, ‘A Prototype Expert System For Making Bail Recommendations’, (1992) 7th BILETA Conference, Information Technology and Legal Education: Towards 2000, 9th & 10th April 1992 2 Ibid
2. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 46
Bail is the provisional release granted to a suspect while waiting for trial.3 It is an undertaking entered into by a suspect with a court or police in which the suspect agrees to appear in court at an appointed date and also comply with every other conditions and terms that may be attached to the bail.4 There are three types of bail; police bail, police to court bail and court to court bail.5 Police bail is when someone is arrested and later released due to insufficient evidence for charges to be brought against him. The police can then use the time for which the accused is on bail to carry out further investigation into the offence before making a final decision. Before the accused is granted bail he will be interviewed and subsequently be issued a form which will state when and where to return to answer the bail.6 Police to court bail is when the accused has been charged with an offence and granted bail to return to the court at a specified date. Court to court bail is when a court grants a defendant the permission to go and return to the court or another court at a specified date. In applying for bail it is usually required that the application be made in writing, provide the names and addresses of any sureties, state the offence, proposed address if granted bail and name of householder.7
Once an alleged criminal is charged he may be released on bail8 except where it is believed that (see Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976):
1. There is doubt about his identity and address;
2. It is in his interest and/or the interest of somebody else that he be remanded;
3. There is a strong likelihood that he may abscond and fail to appear in court;
4. There is a strong possibility that while on bail he may obstruct the smooth administration of justice; and
5. There is a reasonable ground for the court to believe that while on bail he may commit further crime.
Bail may also be denied to a defendant who is charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape. Section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides that if the
3 Paralegal Advisory Service (PAS), ‘What is bail?’ (2004) <www.penalreform.org/resources/bro-2004-what-is-bail-en.pdf> accessed 16/05/2009
4 Legal Services Commission, ‘What is bail?’ (South Australia, Law handbook) <http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch02s03s01.php> accessed 6 June 2009
5 Dorset Police Force, ‘Bail Conditions’ <http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=1024> accessed 16 May 2009 6 Patricia M Morgan and Paul F Henderson, ‘Remand decisions and offending on bail: evaluation of the Bail Process Project’ (London: Home Office, 1998) Home Office Research Studies <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors184.pdf> accessed 18 May 2009 7 If a criminal case is brought before the crown Court and the defendant wishes to file for bail while waiting for the case to reach a conclusion, he will have to apply for bail and fill out form B (Notice of application for bail, the court of appeal criminal division, Criminal Appeal Act 1968, (Criminal Procedure Rules, r.68.8(2))) as part of the bail application process. If the application for bail is following grant of conditional police bail see the bail application procedure as stated in article 84A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (Magistrates' Courts (Amendment) Rules 1995). 8 Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 provides that bail shall be granted to: 4(2) (a) To a person who appears or is brought before a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court in the course of or in connection with proceedings for the offence, or 4(2)(b) To a person who applies to a court for bail or for a variation of the conditions of bail]in connection with the proceedings. 4 (3) To a person who have been convicted of an offence, appears or is brought before a magistrates’ court to be dealt with under [Part II of Schedule 3 to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (breach of certain community orders)]. 4(4) To a person who has been convicted of an offence and whose case is adjourned by the court for the purpose of enabling inquiries or a report to be made to assist the court in dealing with him for the offence.
3. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 47
defendant has previously been convicted of any of the above mentioned crimes in the past he will not be granted bail except for very exceptional grounds. This has been thought to be in conflict with the provisions of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it was clarified that these two provisions are not in conflict in R(O) v Harrow Crown Court (2003) The Times, 29 May by Kennedy LJ.9
Bail may be granted with conditions or without conditions attached. The police and court can impose conditions to bail granted for several reasons. It could be to ensure that the accused returns to court at an appointed date, to ensure that the accused does not go out and disrupt or interfere with witnesses whiles on bail or to prevent the accused from committing further crime. Some of the conditions imposed could be to restrict the accused movement by asking him not to move out of the town where the crime was committed or asking him not to move within certain distance to a witness residence or office. Curfew may be placed on him requesting that he does not stay outside his house beyond a given time and does not leave his house before a set time. On the other hand the court can grant an unconditional bail to a defendant where and when it is convinced that the defendant will return to court at an appointed time. And that while on bail he will not try to disrupt the administration of justice on that particular case or indeed any other case for that matter and that he will not commit further crime.10
2.1 Breach of Bail
It is an offence for a person to fail to show up in court on the agreed date or violates any of earlier stated bail conditions where applicable. For instance, it is an offence for the person when asked not to travel outside a given geographical location to do so without the knowledge and consent of the court. If the person is found guilty of not adhering to the terms and conditions of bail it may lead to his immediate arrest and the bail withdrawn. The person may end up being remanded in custody and may not be granted bail in future or stricter conditions may be imposed on him. It is generally considered a criminal offence to breach bail. Section 6 of the Bail Act 1976 subsections 1and 2 provide that: (1) if a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody he shall be guilty of an offence; (2) if a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and having reasonable cause therefore, has failed to surrender to custody, fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.
In a situation where the accused believes he has good enough reason that prevented him from surrendering to custody, s6 (3) of the Act provides that it shall be for the accused to prove with substantial reason that he has justifiable reason for not surrendering to custody. Where a person is found wanting with respect to subsections 1 and 2 of Section 6 the offence is punishable under subsection 5 of the same section, either on summary conviction or as if it were criminal contempt of court.
2.2 Challenges of the Present bail System
Having a functional and effective bail system is very important in every society. The bail system should not be too lax neither should it be too rigid and insensitive to allow innocent citizens suffer under detention. The challenge therefore, is to have a bail system that carefully marries these two concerns together; a system that is able to reduce risk to the public while protecting the rights of the citizen, including the right to freedom unless convicted.
The then shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Herbert, in 2008 suggested that the bail system was too weak.11 The conservatives generally argue that the public interest be given more attention in bail decisions. This view is in line with the call by Scotland Police chiefs in May 2005 on the then Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, to get tougher on criminals who commit crimes while on bail. At the time it was recorded that more than 21,000 offences have been committed by people on bail in the Strathclyde Police area alone within a period of one
9 Robert Jago, ‘Civil and Criminal Procedure’ <http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/civ_crim/criminal_procedure_ch11.pdf> accessed 8 June 2009
10 Criminal Justice System, ‘Upholding the Rights of the Defendants’ <http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/defendant/bail/> accessed 18 April 2009
11 Michael White and Andrew Sparrow, ‘Conservatives unveil plan to reform bail system’ Guardian (London 11 August 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/11/justice.conservatives> accessed 17 May 2009
4. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 48
year.12 Further evidence in support of this view can be seen in the report that 60 out of the over 450 (that is about 13 percent) murder suspects charged in 2008 were bailed after being charged. And also four out of every five violent crime suspects gets bail13.
Nick Herbert was of the view that the fee of £60 for failing to answer bail was too small and insufficient for not showing in court at the due date. He further thinks that defendants are easily granted bail, bail is breached frequently and the enforcement of bail rules is wanting. Having a lax bail system is against the public interest as the criminals who are easily let go free may go back to commit more crime while on bail. This may affect the confidence which citizens have on the general judicial system. Gordon Brown instigated that the bail policy should be reviewed following the killing of his mother-in-law and himself by a former police inspector, Garry Weddel, while out on bail.14 If this incident is anything to go by one would recommend a stricter bail policy and possibly having a blanket bail system. However, having a blanket bail policy, will result to breach of human right and go against the principles of human right laws15. Article 5(1)( c) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security and no one shall be deprived of this right except in the following instances: the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so. Furthermore, Article 6 of the Convention provides that everyone has a right to fair trial. Bail decisions should therefore, be treated on a case by case basis.
The judicial system as pointed out above should not adopt a blanket bail policy. Remanding people unnecessarily will also put more pressure on the prisons. Overcrowding of prisons had already become a major headache to the UK government. [16][17][18] Unfair detention of defendants and over crowding of prisons has been reported to be one of the causes of prison suicide in UK.19 The bail system is partly blamed for this problem.
12 The Journal Online, ‘Bail system in crisis, say police chiefs: Conference call to Executive for crackdown on bail offenders’ The Journal Online (London 20 May 05) <http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1001851.aspx> accessed 4 July 2009 13 Michael White and Andrew Sparrow, ‘Conservatives unveil plan to reform bail system’ Guardian (London 11 August 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/11/justice.conservatives> accessed 17 May 2009
14 Ibid
15 The Law Commission, ‘Criminal Law: Bail and The Human Rights Act 1998: A Summary’ (1999) Consultation Paper NO 157 <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp157sum.pdf> accessed 17 May 2009 16 BBC News, ‘Prison overcrowding 'at crisis point'’ BBC News (London Wednesday, 28 August, 2002) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2222022.stm> accessed 20 May 2009 17 Sophie Goodchild, ‘Public at risk from prison overcrowding’ The Independent (London Sunday, 21 January 200) <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/public-at-risk-from-prison-overcrowding-433075.html> accessed 20 May 2009 18 Alan Travis, ‘Overcrowding blamed for rise in prison deaths’ The Guardian (London Saturday 22 September 2007) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/22/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation> accessed 20 May 2009
19 Nigel Morris, ‘Rise in prison suicides blamed on overcrowding’ The Independent (London Friday, 17 June 2005) <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rise-in-prison-suicides-blamed-on-overcrowding-494408.html> accessed 19 May 2009
5. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 49
The unnecessary remand of defendants is seen as one of the major causes of the rise in the prison population.20 Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: "This catalogue of deaths must act as a terrible warning to the courts to avoid custody for those who are vulnerable or mentally ill, and a stark wake-up call to Government to act now to improve court diversion, bail provision and treatment options and, at long last, to end prison overcrowding."21
Another challenge facing the bail systems is the fact that magistrates have very limited time within which to make a bail decision. This leads to inconsistency in bail decisions (a major human right concern, see above), lack of proper documentation and no time to adequately reference past similar instances. The issue of inconsistency in bail decisions is not only peculiar to this domain but also to the sentencing domain, a domain which has some similarities to the bail domain. In fact U.J Schild (1998) argues that in the domain of criminal sentencing that it is possible for a judge to arrive at different conclusions even under identical conditions. It all basically depends on what the judge has at the back of his mind to achieve. The judge may arrive at a different conclusion if rehabilitation is what he has in mind and may arrive at a different conclusion in terms of sentencing if deterrence is what he has in mind.22 Furthermore, K. White (2004) argues that similar crimes may end up with different sentences and one factor that has to be taken into consideration is societal expectations.23 This situation is quite similar to what obtains in the bail domain. A research carried out in 2004 in New York using courtroom observations complemented with the state’s Criminal Justice Agency databases revealed that some factors influence the bail decision reached by judges24, see section 4.1.2 below. In reaching his decision the judge may not only consider the likelihood of the defendant fleeing but also the possibility of pre-trial crime or he may choose to deny the defendant bail as a mark of pre-trial punishment.25
The foregoing arguments are not out of context but there should be more consistency in decisions reached by judges including bail decisions. This can be achieved by the use of decision support systems specifically suited for the bail domain. This system will also provide judges with accurate information and help them make faster and more informed decisions. This decision support system should in no way impair the freedom or independence of judges.26 And it does not imply that judges will no longer be subjective on matters pertaining to bail but they will carry out bail decision based on facts and accurate information made readily available to them through the bail support system.27 And even though the sentencer may have the discretion and
20 Prison Reform Trust, ‘Five ways to stem prison overcrowding’, October 2005 <http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/subsection.asp?id=349> accessed 20 May 2009
21 Nigel Morris, ‘Rise in prison suicides blamed on overcrowding’ The Independent (London Friday, 17 June 2005) <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rise-in-prison-suicides-blamed-on-overcrowding-494408.html> accessed 19 May 2009
22 U. J Schild, ‘Criminal sentencing and intelligent decision support’, (1998) 6 Artificial Intelligence and Law, volume 6: 151
23 K. White, ‘From ‘Knowing’ to Legal Knowledge: Using Early Twentieth Century Canadian Murder Trials to Problematize Knowledge Management Technology’ (2004) CAUT Law Forum - Winnipeg, 2004
24 Mary T. Phillips, ‘Release and bail conditions in New York’ (2004) New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Research brief No. 6, August 2004 <http://www.cjareports.org/reports/brief6.pdf> accessed 7 June 2009
25 John S. Goldkamp and Michael R. Gottfredson, ‘Bail decision making and pre-trial detention Surfacing judicial policy’ (2005) Springer Netherlands, Law and Human Behaviour
26 U.J. Schild, "Criminal sentencing and intelligent decision support", (1998) Artificial Intelligence and Law, volume 6: 151
6. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 50
the last say in deciding whether a suspect may be granted bail or not it is an offence for him to do so with the wrong motives, maliciously, unlawfully or without substantial reason or probable cause, see Linford v Fitzroy (1849) 13 QB 240 at 247; R v Badger (1843) 4 QB 468 at 472 and Osborne V Gough 3 B & P 551. 2.2.1 Problems with the Bail Act
Schedule 1, part 1 Article 2 of the Bail Act, 1976 provides that a defendant should not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant if released on bail would fail to surrender to custody, commit an offence while on bail, and interfere with witness or otherwise obstruct justice be it in relation to himself or someone else. The Act did not clarify on what is meant by ‘substantial grounds for believing’. It did not in itself provide in explicit terms what constitutes relevant ‘grounds for believing’. The law commission have argued that requirements as to what constitutes ‘substantial grounds for believing’ should be added to the Act.28 There is no body of judicial rules which one can point at that supports or provides reasonable explanations for determining ‘grounds for believing’. It is unlike other aspects of law where history of judicial rules provides substantial guidance. However, efforts are been made to address this sort of gaps in legal documents, ranging from the use of mathematical models29 to Larry Laudan’s reform proposal which suggests that focus should be on objective evidence in place of jurors’ subjective viewpoint.30Some of these proposed solutions could be adopted for the bail domain.
The UK legal system relies on case-based reasoning as a guide to determine present and future cases31. This is referred to as the doctrine of stare decisis. That is the outcome, rulings, in previous cases of similar nature are used as guide to decide present cases, invariably like cases should be treated alike. Even though bail decisions are not usually discussed in the context of stare decisis, the same moral perception applies: courts deviating without reason in their bail decisions from established practice violate one of the most fundamental tenets of justice. Case-based reasoning for now is not as effective in bail system as it is in other legal domains. The reason for this include the fact that in bail decisions, there are no mechanism for properly documenting the proceedings and decisions reached and the reasons for which such decisions were taken. The time frame from start to finish for a bail case is usually very short. And the courts have not really had reasons enough to put in place mechanism for documenting the proceedings perhaps due to time constraint and the volume of bail cases that need to be addressed within the very limited time. Part of the principles of the stare decisis doctrine is the respect and regard given to past judgements made by higher courts (appellate courts) over lower courts. A lower court is bound by the decisions of a higher court. In bail systems it is not very often that you see bail decisions appealed to higher courts. The reasons are still within the major challenges of the bail system, the time for hearing a case is too short and there is no proper documentation. For a decision to be appealed you need to show convincingly that the decision reached by the lower court lacked merit.
In the absence of rules on a particular subject by a higher court, a lower court can decide to rely on previous rules by another court of equal level. Such reliance by a court on another court of equal status is
27 Samantha Besson, ‘Four Arguments Against Compromising Justice Internally’, (2003) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1 June 2003 28 The Law Commission, ‘Bail and the Human Right Act 1998: Executive Summary’ LawCom No 269, <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc269sum.pdf> accessed 5 June 2009 29 Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof’ (2007) <http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/07GordonPrakkenWalton.pdf> accessed 4 August 2009
30 Larry Laudan, Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology, (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law, CUP, Cambridge 2005)
31 Sharon Hanson, Legal method and reasoning, (2nd Edition Cavendish Pub Ltd, London 2003)
7. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 51
usually motivated by the degree of persuasiveness of the rulings in the case. But the same challenge will be encountered within the bail domain. Even though courts at the same level may have made bail decisions on similar matters there may be no documentation on the outcome of those cases. This lack of substantial record of past cases is a major challenge to the construction of a robust expert system for the bail domain. Although, this challenge is not impossible to overcome in building an expert system for the bail domain but it must be taken into consideration by all means in designing such system.
III. SENTENCING DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Not too much work has been done in the area of developing expert systems or decision support systems in the bail domain; in fact the effort in this area is very sparse. This is however, not the case for the sentencing domain even though it shares a lot in common with the bail domain. This section will start by looking at the general challenges facing the sentencing domain. It will then go further to look at the progress made and challenges encountered in designing and deploying decision support system in the sentencing domain. It will also consider how the lessons learnt from the sentencing domain can be adopted and applied in the design of a decision support system for the bail domain. Since we will argue that it is possible to transfer most if not all of the ideas from sentencing support to bail decision support, we will now discuss sentencing support systems in some length starting with the challenges facing the domain.
One of the challenges facing the sentencing domain is the complaint that there are a lot of disparities in the sentencing decisions made by judges. And this is attributed to the plenty of room given to judges to use their initiatives and the challenge posed by huge statutory provisions which the judges have to come to grips with. Another problem is variation in content and scope and variation in quality of the information presented before the Court and for which decision has to be based on.32 Other reasons for lack of uniformity in sentencing are due to different sentencing aims and different judges assigning varying weight to each sentencing aim. These challenges as is in the sentencing domain are very similar to the challenges in the bail domain see above.
In solving the earlier pointed challenges in the sentencing decision system various jurisdictions have adopted strategies and methods which they consider suitable for their particular society. Some states in the US, such as Minnesota, for example have adopted sentencing guidelines.33 The US Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 forms the foundation for the Federal Sentencing Guideline34 as seen today. The guidelines provide sentencing ranges for various crimes. However, in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Court held that sentencing guidelines as constituted violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. It also held in the second opinion that the sentencing guidelines should be treated and used as discretionary or strictly for advisory purposes. This decision goes to restore to judges the power to use their discretion in passing a sentence on a given case and saving the system from been purely mechanistic.35
Other jurisdictions are seeking the use of computer systems to provide decision support for judges or a combination of decision support systems and sentencing guidelines. Sentencing decision support systems as implemented in some of these jurisdictions (see below) are not introduced with the purpose of replacing judges but rather as a mere support to judges to help them more efficiently perform their duties. A judge is still left with the right to heed to the recommendations of the computer systems in part or in full or even discard it entirely. There is room for judges to use their own discretion (been able to choose from a list of correct answers only this time the correct choices are backed with substantial analytic reasoning and evidence provided by the computer).
32 David Bainbridge, ‘‘CASE': Computer Assisted Sentencing in Magistrates' Courts’ (2005) 5th BILETA Conference
33 Andrew Von Hirsch, ‘Sentencing guidelines and penal aims in Minnesota’ (1994) Criminal Justice Ethics vol. 13, 1994
34 United States Sentencing Commission, ‘Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manuals’ (2008) <http://www.ussc.gov/2008guid/GL2008.pdf > accessed 3 June 2009
35 Lisa M. Seghetti and Alison M. Smith, ‘CRS Report for Congress, Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Background, Legal Analysis, and Policy Options’ Updated June 30, 2007 <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32766.pdf> accessed 3 June 2009
8. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 52
However, such systems will to a very good extent reduce the disparity in the sentencing decisions as it will provide in clearer terms to a judge how a decision is arrived at based on statues and past cases of similar nature.
Sentencing decision support system or sentencing information system (SIS) as it may be referred to in some parts of this paper have been around for over two decades. Its level of development and adoption varies from one jurisdiction to another. Some of the countries that have embraced it include Canada, Scotland, Israel, England and Wales, Netherlands, and Australia. Amongst these jurisdictions Canada was the first reported to have experimented with SIS. She however, recorded very limited success (Doob and Part, 1987).36 The same is not particularly the story in other jurisdictions, as the few jurisdictions that have tried out SIS have recorded varying level of success in terms of the design of the system and its subsequent application.
ENGLAND AND WALES
Computer Assisted Sentencing (CASE) was built for sentencing in Magistrate’s Court in England and Wales due to the diversity of the cases that are brought before the court. Magistrates are lay persons with little or no legal background and it is the first court majority of offenders are brought to.37 The court in passing a judgement on a particular case may be faced with a variety of correct answers. The court is bound to choose from these right answers but not arbitrarily, there must be a strong basis for reaching a particular decision or picking a given choice. This is a huge challenge as the court will have to take into consideration the uniqueness of each case and apply the most appropriate principles.38 This necessitated the development of CASE to assist magistrates and help make their work easier.
The system was built using Microsoft BASIC after unsuccessful attempts to use existing shells, such as Micro Expert and CRYSTAL II. Shells can be quick and effective for developing sentencing system and indeed any software system. They however, have the disadvantage of constraining the development of the system to the shell’s framework or existing structure. The proposed bail decision support system design which will be discussed later will not be built using any existing shells due mainly to the disadvantage pointed out above.
ISRAEL
HaCohen-Kerner & Schild (2001) built an SIS called the Judge’s Apprentice. It is a case-based system and provides support to judges in the sentencing of rape and robbery crimes. The system is like a tree with each leave on the tree representing an index. There are 371 leaves or legal concept, each relevant to specific criminal sentencing. These indexes are used for establishing index similarity between the case at hand and previous cases within the sentencing tree. The system retrieves similar cases and also helps in the selection of the most suitable case among the bunch. After which a case-based quantitative assessment is done and used as a basis for arriving at a verdict for the case at hand.39 In building a BDSS a good starting point will be to begin by limiting the use of the support system to some selected crimes as a pilot. And then monitor the progression and performance of adopting such a scheme and then gradually move it to other forms of crime having tested and debugged the system. The support system can even be modelled to use an index tree similar to the design of the Judge’s Apprentice.
NETHERLAND
This system is designed for the northern part of the Dutch Judicial System, it is called NOSTRA. It is limited in scope to offences with not too complex sentencing decisions. Its architecture is such that more features can be added to it with time- that means it has an open architecture. It provides judges with the ability to compare present cases with previous cases, see the decision in the previous cases and see the argument preceding the decision. The actual programming language used in developing NOSTRA was not clearly stated
36 A.N Doob and N.W Park, 'Computerised Sentencing Information for Judges' (1987) Criminal Law Quarterly 30: 54–72 37 David Bainbridge, ‘'CASE': Computer Assisted Sentencing in Magistrates' Courts’ (2005) 5th BILETA Conference 38 These intricacies and the careful and rightful application of the law is seen in the judgement of Dunn L.J. in De Havilland(1983) 5 Cr. App. R. (5) 109 and the judgment of Lord Lane C.J. in Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (5) 142 39 Y. Hacohen-Kerner and U.J. Schild, ‘Case-based Sentencing Using a Tree of Legal Concepts’, (2001) Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 10, Issue 1 March 2001 , pages 125 - 135
9. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 53
by Jenne et al (1998). Although it was stated that it was built on open platform and it is a case-based decision support system.40 One key lesson from this system which is applicable to the proposed BDSS is its open architecture. The proposed BDSS will be built on an open architecture thus having the provision for future features to be added to the system as the need arise and able to readily interconnect to other systems.
NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
The New South Wales SIS was developed primarily not to curtail discretionary judgement by judges but rather to provide more and accurate information upon which a judge can make a more informed discretionary judgment. And of course like other SIS it aims to also promote consistency, rationality and at the same time assisting judges to adhere to the tenets of the law.41 This SIS is built using web (HTML) technology, meaning it can be accessed using regular web browsers such as Netscape and internet explorer. The application subsystem is built on Windows NT, MS IIS Server, Netscape Communication Server, ISYS.web Search engine, Topic Search Engine and MS Office Professional. The SIS can be extended to include more features because its architecture is open allowing for easy expansion. It can seamlessly be interfaced with other systems that can generate ASCII or other standard word processing output. And importantly it can be connected to other existing databases through Open database Connectivity (ODBC).42 This is important because it may become necessary for the SIS to be linked to other databases that may hold vital information on citizens from which a judge can obtain certain vital information on offenders. The proposed bail DSS will be built using web technology such that it can be accessed over the web from a remote location using regular web browsers such as internet explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape and chrome. And its database structure and design will be such that it can easily be connected to other databases.
SCOTLAND
The Scottish SIS basically took its lead from that of New South Wales, Australia. It all began after Lord Justice Clerk got an inspiration from the demonstration of the New South Wales System in a conference of the Commonwealth of Learning held in Canada.43 Work started in earnest on the Scottish SIS in 1993 in the University of Strathclyde. But the system did not go into full use in the High Court until February 2002.44
The SIS comprises of two main subsystems. The first subsystem is the interface that allows for data to be entered into the system thereby updating the databases. With this judges and clerks can enter new cases into the system. It also allows judges to enter information detailing the reasons behind the decision they took on a particular case. The second subsystem is for data retrieval. The system allows judges to readily retrieve data on a previous case entered into the database. The system more or less has the same set of features as is the case with the New South Wales SIS. The proposed bail DSS will have high security and allow different levels of access, while some may have read only access some may go as far as having both read and write access. People with write access such as clerks and judges will be able to update the database from time to time. However, when the database is updated before the new addition is finally accepted it will go through a set level of approval. This is to create checks and balances so that the systems is not abused and wrong data entered or deleted without following due process.
40 Jenne Van Der Vinne, Ing. W Van Zwol and M Karnekamp ‘A Sentencing Information System Named 'NOSTRA'’ (1998) IJL&IT 1998 6 (230)
41 Austin Lovegrove, ‘Statistical Information--Systems as a Means to Consistency and Rationality in Sentencing’ (1999) IJL&IT 1999 7 (31)
42 Ibid
43 Cyrus Tata, John N. Wilson and Neil Hutton, ‘Representations of Knowledge and Discretionary Decision- Making by Decision-Support Systems: the Case of Judicial Sentencing’ (1996) JILT 1996 (2) <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1996_2/tata/#a3.2.4.1> accessed 2 June 2009
44 The Sentencing Commission for Scotland, ‘The Scope to Improve Consistency in Sentencing’ Report – 2006 <http://www.scottishsentencingcommission.gov.uk/docs/consistency/Consistency%20Report%20- %20Final.pdf> accessed 30 May 2009
10. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 54
The proposed BDSS will be built taking into consideration all the above mentioned lessons from existing sentencing decision support systems and indeed the work by Patricia Hasset on BDSS.
IV. BAIL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
Hassett’s work, although a prototype, is quite insufficient and limited in scope to solve the challenges of the bail system. A system that checks if an offender will answer bail when released is not robust enough to solve the present shortcomings of the bail system or provide substantial help to judges in making bail decisions. A defendant should not be denied bail only on the basis that he may not answer bail nor should he be granted bail only on the premise that there is substantial evidence that he will not flee. It is not that this is not a good ground to deny a suspect bail but it should not be the only ground for which a defendant is denied bail. Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 provides other conditions under which an accused may be denied bail. Some of these include if there is a strong proof that the accused may commit an offence while on bail, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person and if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare. If there is strong suspicion that an accused will fail to surrender to custody if granted bail, he may be granted bail with strong conditions. His travel passport may be ceased. He may be asked not to move outside a particular locality. His movement may be monitored by responsible law enforcement body. So if the defendant can be prevented from not reporting to the court why deny him bail simply because there is some doubt that he may not return for trail. However, if there is some other supporting evidence against the accused such as one or more of the exceptions under Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 the accused may be refused bail. Take a scenario where an accused is granted bail on the fact that he will definitely return to the court on the appointed date but failing to recognise that the accused may go ahead to commit further crime when on bail as was the case with Garry Weddel see above. Likewise the fact that a defendant has past criminal record does not mean that if released he will go back to commit further crime. The weight of the crime or the severity of the likely sentence against the defendant if found guilty is not sufficient to conclude that the defendant will abscond if granted bail. In other words other factors have to be taken into consideration when making a bail decision. To ensure that judges render the right bail sentence taking into consideration the provisions of the bail Act, there is need to seek the help of intelligent computer systems, a system that will focus on the court not denying or granting a defendant bail unjustly. This system is a decision support system tailored to the bail domain. A BDSS is, therefore, computer software designed to assist judges and police-officers make the right bail decisions. Decision support systems are expert systems if they do not stop at presenting raw data to the user. If the system goes the extra mile of analysing the data and providing the user with suggestions as to how it arrived at a conclusion then it is an expert system as it possesses some intelligence. Take an example of a judge who was presented with the case of a suspected criminal who apparently is seeking bail until the next hearing of his case in court. Obviously the judge will want to look up the suspect’s past criminal record, consider the circumstances surrounding this very crime, check if the suspect has been granted bail for any previous offense and whether he kept to the bail conditions. He may also want to refer to the outcome of previous cases of similar nature and circumstance if available. When the judge keys in the personal details of the suspect the system should be able to immediately query its database and provide the judge with the suspect’s past criminal records. It should also provide the judge with other details such as the marital status, employment status and age of the suspect. The system will then use these two sets of details to provide recommendation as to whether the suspect should be granted or denied bail and the possible bail terms and conditions. The system should also be able to provide reason for its recommendations, thus doing the hard work for the judge. The judge does not have to take the recommendations of the BDSS verbatim but it can be a very solid guide to the bail decision to be made by the judge. This system should be able to seamlessly connect to other existing relevant databases and extract information based on the judge’s query that are relevant to specific cases. 4.1 Risk Assessment: Reasons for Developing a BDSS
The decision maker has to ascertain if there is ‘substantial grounds’ to believe that the accused will not reoffend, flee or obstruct justice if released. If ‘substantial grounds’ does not exist for the decision marker to believe that the accused will reoffend, flee or obstruct justice if released, the statues provide the accused is to be released and asked to return to court at a particular date for hearing of the case. If ‘substantial grounds’ does, however, exist for the decision maker to believe that upon release the accused may flee, obstruct the
11. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 55
administration of justice or re-offend, the statues provide that the accused should be detained or released with conditions. The bail decision maker has to carefully analyse the risk of releasing or detaining an accused. Experienced magistrates may be able to use their wealth of experiential knowledge to determine if an accused will flee or reoffend if granted bail based on certain considerations but the chances of the magistrate getting it wrong is very high. However, this can be more efficiently achieved using data mining tool that correlates records in the criminal justice system with personal sociological features. In addition statistical analysis can be carried out on the behaviour of previous cases of bail granted or denied. The analysis will help determine how many persons granted bail fled or re-offended within a given time period. It will show what kind of crime has the highest and least number of re-offenders, accused that fled and those that tampered or attempted to obstruct the administration of justice. It will show how many of these people are female or male, their ages and other vital details. This sort of statistical tool will be an integral part of a robust BDSS such as the one proposed in this paper. Yet another form of risk worth giving full attention is the risk of wrongfully denying bail or granting bail. As mentioned earlier it is improper and very unfair to an accused if he is wrongfully denied bail. This may cause the accused to suffer various devastations such as relationship with family, loss of employment, health issues and physiological trauma. And on the other hand, as also earlier pointed out granting bail wrongfully can affect the confidence the public has on the judicial system. The person released on bail can go back and commit further crime (see the case of Garry Weddel above) or flee. It is therefore, very important that in-depth risk analysis be carried out before granting bail or denying an accused bail. This sort of analysis cannot be carried out immediately by the decision maker within the very limited time frame which he has to make a bail decision without needing the help of a well designed and tailored software tool. The BDSS proposed in this paper will be able to carry out this risk analysis and present the decision maker with results and reasons behind each result. This still allows the decision maker room to use his discretion to choose the most appropriate answer but this time he sees the reasoning behind each result, he does not have to choose a result and corresponding reason but may modify the result and/or the reasoning behind the result to more suitably address the case at hand. Finally, it may be wrong for similar crimes committed under very similar circumstances to attract bail decisions that are very wide apart. The bail process as presently structured does not have what it takes to fix this challenge. It will take a system that has a database of previous crimes and their corresponding bail decision to solve this problem. 4.1.1 Risk of Reoffending A study titled ‘Re-offending on Bail in Avon and Somerset’ (Bristol: Avon and Somerset Constabulary, 1991) revealed some interesting results on factors that could influence the likelihood of an accused reoffending while on bail. It showed that 28 percent of accused granted bail reoffends from a court summary, CID survey showed the proportion to be 27% while the questionnaire result from Custody Officer showed the portion to be 12 percent. According to the study the major factors associated with reoffending include;
Age of defendant: younger defendants (those aged between 17 and 20 years) are twice more likely to reoffend than those aged 26 years and above,
Type of offence: suspects on bail for vehicle-related crime and burglary showed high likelihood to reoffend, and
Number of previous convictions has also shown to be a major contributor to the likelihood of reoffending.
A more recent study than the one above, ‘Offending on Bail and Police use of Conditional Bail’ (Brown, D., Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, Research findings No. 72, London: Home Office, 1998, p.1) gave revelations that were not too far from the previous study. It showed that suspects granted bail for vehicle-related crime have the highest tendency of re-offending (44 percent) followed closely by suspects on bail for crime of theft by shoplifting (40 percent). It also revealed that younger people (juvenile) are twice as likely to reoffend compared to their adult counterparts. Another study ‘Remand Decisions and Offending on bail: Evaluation of the bail Process Project’ (Morgan, P., and Henderson, P., Home Office, 1998, p.45) revealed that the following factors are also responsible for re-offending: persons with no fixed home address (42 percent), suspects who had to wait for more than six months before trial or sentence (32 percent), suspects charged with car theft (32 percent), suspects who has previously breached bail (27 percent), those who have previously been jailed (28 percent), suspects below 18 years of age (29 percent) and unemployed suspects (21 percent). This study also went further to show that suspects with shorter period to trial disposition (that is waited for less than say one month) were less likely to reoffend (4 percent). Also only 7 percent of employed suspects will reoffend
12. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 56
and only 6 percent, 7 percent and 8 percent respectively for sex offences, assault and fraud. From the foregoing the risk of reoffending can be summarised as shown below: High: Suspect is below 18 years of age; Suspect has no fixed address; Offence is vehicle-related or burglary; Suspect is not employed; Suspect has previously breached bail; Suspect has gone to jail before for a crime; Suspect has to wait for more than six months for case to be heard. Low: Suspect is adult, above 18 years of age; Suspect has a fixed home address; Suspect has to wait for a short period before trial; The offence is sex related, assault or fraud. 4.1.2 Risk of non-appearance Ensuring that a suspect will attend his trial as at when due is very important in the granting of bail. This was affirmed by Lord Russell in R v Rose (1898) 78 LT 119. According to a research carried out by New York City Criminal Agency some factors should be taken into consideration when assessing risk of flight. These factors include; family ties, probable sentence (strength of offence), past criminal record, employment status, how long suspect has lived in the community, character and mental stability of suspect and whether or not suspect has failed to surrender to bail in the past.
Patricia Hassett (1992)45 pointed out that risk of flight is influenced by whether the penalty upon conviction is custodial or not and also by the level of family and community ties. A man who has a wife, with children who are in school, has a mortgage of which he has paid substantial equity and has a good and stable job is less likely to abscond. He will not want to lose all the above mentioned simply because he wants to avoid a short period of incarceration.
A study showed that 7 percent of defendants granted police bail failed to attend first court appearance as at when due and 9 percent of those granted court bail failed to attend at least one court hearing. (Brown, D., ‘Offending on Bail and Police use of Conditional Bail’(1998) Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, Research findings No. 72, London: Home Office, 1998, p.1). Neil Corre and David Wolchover (2004)46 pointed out that factors which have likely influence on whether a subject will abscond include; nature and seriousness of offence, the character of the defendant (has he been convicted of previous offences if so how many times, see R v Vallet [1951] 1 All ER 231), the kind of people he associates with, community ties, previous bail history, character, the defendants mental stability, family ties, probable sentence (strength of offence), past criminal record and employment status. From the foregoing the risk of non-appearance can be summarised as shown below: High: No strong family ties, perhaps say not married or have any kids; Does not have a fixed address or any form of ties to the community; Has previously breached bail; Has previously been convicted on a related offence; Penalty if convicted is custodial; Has no job; Is linked with a criminal group; Is not mentally stable. Low: Strong family ties; Employed; Strong community ties; Never breached bail in the past; Penalty if convicted is not custodial; No past criminal record; Mentally stable and of good character 4.1.3 Risk of interfering with the administration of justice The risk of obstruction to the proper administration of justice is one that must be well assessed in determining whether a defendant should be granted bail. Witnesses must not be intimidated or coerced in any way and evidence must not be tampered with by the defendant. Factors that should be considered in measuring the risk of interference by a defendant include;
The relationship between the defendant and the witness. If the defendant is very close to the witness, say they live in the same house, chances are that the defendant may interfere with administration of justice,
In a situation where there is close proximity between the defendant’s house and the witness or if the defendant has easy access to the witness. He can easily go and intimidate the witness or persuade him through other means not to testify,
The defendant can easily access the evidence. Take a scenario the defendant is accused of stealing a car or killing a little boy and in both cases the stolen car or the dead boy is not yet traced. Chances are that if released he may go ahead to ensure that the car is not found or the dead boy’s body is not discovered,
45 Patricia Hassett,, ‘A Prototype Expert System For Making Bail Recommendations’, (1992) 7th BILETA Conference, Information Technology and Legal Education: Towards 2000, 9th & 10th April 1992 46 Neil Corre and David Wolchover, Bail in Criminal Proceedings, (3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2004) Chapter 1: Right to bail
13. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 57
If there is believe that the defendant may have access to jurors and may bribe them or intimidate them, the defendant is part of larger group and other suspects are still at large. If released on bail he may tip-off other suspects.
The defendant has directly threatened the witness or has somehow (be it directly or indirectly) admitted to do so.
From the foregoing the risk of interfering with the administration of justice can be summarised as show below: High: Accused and witness live in the same house; Accused lives very near to witness; Accused can easily access evidence if released; There is a strong likelihood that the accused may bribe or intimidate the jurors if released; The accused has threatened the witness Low: Accused is not related to witness; Accused has no access to witness; Accused if released will have no access to evidence; There is no chance that the accused will intimidate or bribe the jurors; Accused has in no way threatened the witness 4.2 Design of A BDSS In building the BDSS an interface would be developed for entering new bail cases; the outcome and the reasoning behind the bail decision. A list of possible outcomes would be built into the system based on the analysis under the risk assessment section, see above. Also a list of reasoning behind the outcome will also be built into the system. Then there will be fields for the decision maker to enter additional comments under the case outcome field and the reasoning field. For the system to be effective and efficient there must be a large number of previous cases, outcomes and reasoning behind the outcome entered into the database of the system. This system will be implemented using web based technology such as ColdFusion or PHP to allow for centralized access by all judges. The system would also be flexible enough to connect to third party databases for references. The system is modelled using the three risk analysis scenarios detailed above. Figure 1 below shows the process flow diagram for the risk of reoffending. Each of the risk variables is assigned specific weight as would have been determined by the judicial system, meaning it is basically a hybrid of case-based and rule- based reasoning structure. The system computes the cumulative weight by multiplying the weight of the variable by 1 if it is a yes or by 0 if it is a No. The same thing is repeated in figure 2 for the risk of non-appearance and figure 3 for the risk of interfering with the administration of justice. The points obtained in each of these three sections are further added together and weighed against set thresholds, see figure 4. If the point gained is above a given threshold the result will be bail denied, if it is however below the threshold it is bail granted. The bail granted could be conditional or unconditional depending on how much the point is below the set threshold, see the scenario under artificial neural networks.
14. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 58
Is the offender
below 18 years?
The system
starts checking
each factor
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Does suspect
have a fixed
address?
No
1 * Weighted
value
Is offence vehicle
related or
burglary?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Yes
Is suspect
employed? 1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Has suspect
previously
breached bail?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Has suspect
gone to jail before
for a crime?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Has suspected
waited for more
than 6 months for
a case to be
heard?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Total points
gained
Risk of Reoffending – Each risk factor is assigned a value of
1 if answer is YES and 0 if answer is NO. Each risk factor has
a weight which would be aggregated at the end of this
process.
0 * Weighted
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
Is the offence sex
related, assault or
fraud
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
0 * Weighted No
value
Figure 1
15. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 59
Risk of non-appearance – Each risk factor is assigned a value
of 1 if answer is YES and 0 if answer is NO. Each risk factor
has a weight which would be aggregated at the end of this
process.
Does the suspect
have strong
family ties?
The system
starts checking
each factor
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Is the suspect
gainfully
employed?
No
1 * Weighted
value
Has the suspect
lived in the
community for a
long time and has
good ties to the
community?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Yes
Has suspect ever
breached jail in
the past?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Is penalty if
convicted not
custodial?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Does suspect
have a past
criminal record
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Is suspect
mentally stable
and of good
character?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Total points
gained
0 * Weighted
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
Figure 2
16. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 60
Does the
accused and
witness live in the
same house?
The system
starts checking
each factor
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Does the
accused live very
near to witness
No
1 * Weighted
value
Can the accused
easily access
evidence if
released?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Yes
Is there a strong
likelihood that the
accused may bribe
or intimidate the
jurors if released?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Can the accused
threaten the
witness?
1 * Weighted
value
Yes
Risk of interfering with administration of justice – Each risk
factor is assigned a value of 1 if answer is YES and 0 if
answer is NO. Each risk factor has a weight which would be
aggregated at the end of this process.
0 * Weighted
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
0 * Weighted No
value
Total points
gained
Figure 3
17. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 61
Total points gained
from Risk of Re-offending
Total points gained
from Risk of Non-appearance
Total points gained
from Risk of
interfering with
administration of
justice
Points are
processed for
the different
risk scenarios
Is the points gained
above the minimum
threshold?
No
Yes
Bail denied, however
the judge may use his
power and discretion to
override this
Bail granted (could be
conditional or
unconditional)
End the process
The merger of different risk scenarios.
Figure 4
18. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 62
Neural technology will later be incorporated into this system when the database has grown large
enough to adequately train the neural network, giving rise to a system similar to what is obtained in ‘split-up’47.
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are computer programmes designed to function the same way as the human
brain. They are made up of artificial neurons called neurods which are connected to each other by ‘links’. These
‘links’ have varying weights. When designing a system, the combined weight of all the input neurods is
compared or measured against a pre-determined threshold48.
ANNs have the advantage of being able to extract patterns and detect trends, as in link analysis,
between two or more related or disparate activities. These patterns and trends ordinarily may not be easily
noticeable by human or other computer systems. For instance ANN can be used to detect if there is a link
between a suspect and previous suspects or convicted criminals. Such revelations may be invaluable in reaching
a bail decision by a judge. ANN can also carry out complex computational analysis in real-time and in parallel
with other computational analysis.
ANN trained with previous cases
as contained in the repository
Input from
current case
Output signal
providing
outcome for the
case at hand
Figure 1
ANN compares the input signals provided from the current case with the existing cases stored in the
repository. ANN is able to determine the nature of the crime and predict with substantial level of intelligence,
based on the training it has received, the outcome of the case, see figure 1 above. This is achieved by identifying
the correlation (similarity and pattern) between the current case and existing cases in the database. It matches
the case with the existing cases and filters out the cases that most closely match the current case. Based on the
outcome of the previous cases it can then go ahead to predict the outcome of the current case49. Ordinarily
ANNs do not provide explanation as to how it arrived at a given conclusion.
Let us model a scenario involving a 16 year old unemployed boy who is involved in a vehicle-related
crime. This suspect has previously breached bail and has no fixed address.
47 J Zeleznikow and A Stranieri, ‘Split up: an intelligent decision support system which provides advice upon
property division following divorce’(1998) IJLIT 6(2):190-213; Oxford University Press
48 Dan Hunter, ‘Commercialising Legal Neural Networks’ (7 May 1996) JILT 1996 (2)
<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1996_2/hunter/> accessed 28 June 2009
49 Marco Costa, Orlando Sousa and José Neves, ‘An Architecture to Legal Distributed Case Repositories’,
JURIX 1998 <http://www.jurix.nl/pdf/j98-02.pdf> accessed June 26 2009
19. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 63
Sum all weighted inputs
and compares against
set threshold
Below 18 years of
age
(1=yes, 0=No)
No-Fixed_Address
(1=yes, 0=No)
Vehicle-
Related_Crime
(1=yes, 0=No)
Breached_Bail
(1=yes, 0=No)
Unemployed
(1=yes,
0=No)
0.65
0.85
0.70
0.80
0.75
Bail_Granted
(<2.0= Bail Granted,
2.0-2.5=Low bail,
>2.5=No Bail)
Figure 2
From the case above which is graphically represented in figure 2 above the system can predict the
possible outcome of the case by adding up the input and comparing it against the set threshold.
(1x0.65) + (1x 0.85) + (1x0.70) + (1x0.80) + (1x0.75) = 3.75 This outcome compared to the set threshold will
suggest that no bail should be granted to the suspect. However, if there is some changes to the status of the
suspect the outcome may be significantly different. If the status of the suspect where to be different, say the
offender has a fixed address and is gainfully employed it could change the output. In such a scenario the
resulting outcome will be: (1x0.65) + (0x 0.85) + (1x0.70) + (1x0.80) + (0x0.75) = 2.15
This means that low bail or conditional bail may be granted to the suspect based on the set threshold.
V. CONCLUSION
Decision support system can be used to improve the efficiency of the bail system. This system can
provide substantial support to the decision making process, providing the decision maker with accurate
information in the right format. It can process huge and complex information within a very short period, saving
time and freeing the decision maker to focus on more delicate issues pertaining to bail such as analysing the
system’s final output and reaching final conclusion.
Decision support system is only as effective as those who conceived and designed it. To be able to
build a robust system, good time has to be spent on brainstorming and planning. And those who interpret the
outputs from the system should be very knowledgeable and should be able to provide sound feedback for
immediate use and for future upgrade or redesign of the system. It is recommended that legal professionals be
part of the design and implementation of the bail decision system.
Finally, the decision support system as proposed in this paper should be built on open architecture,
should be easily upgradeable, should have a simple interface, built on web technology and easy to use. As the
number of bail cases in the repository grows, neural network technology may then be introduced. These
previous cases will be used to train and retrain the neural network until it is able to take intelligent decision on
its own with minimal or no support from a user. However, the decision reached by the system is subject to
interpretation by the user (in this case the judge). The judge too will require training on how to use the system.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] A.N Doob and N.W Park, 'Computerised Sentencing Information for Judges' (1987) Criminal Law Quarterly 30: 54–72.
[2] Adrian Turner, ‘Getting It Right From The Start’, Justice of the Peace, 10 August 2002.
[3] Alan Travis, ‘Overcrowding blamed for rise in prison deaths’ The Guardian (London Saturday 22 September 2007)
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/22/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation> accessed 20 May 2009
20. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 64
[4] Albert Alschuler, ‘Preventive Pre-trial Detention and the Failure of Interest-Balancing Approaches to Due Process,’ (1986) 85 Michigan Law Review 510.
[5] Andrew Von Hirsch, ‘Sentencing guidelines and penal aims in Minnesota’ (1994) Criminal Justice Ethics vol. 13, 1994
[6] Andrew Vincent and John Zeleznikow, ‘Towards a plea bargaining decision support system for Legal Aid lawyers in Victorian lower courts’, John Zeleznikow, Arno R. Lodder, Second international ODR Workshop, Tilburg: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp 47- ,58 2005 <http://odrworkshop.info/papers2005/odrworkshop2005VincentZeleznikow.pdf> accessed 27 May 2009
[7] Andrew Greinke, ‘Legal Expert Systems - A Humanistic Critique of Mechanical Legal Inference’ (1994) MUEJL Volume 1, Number 4 <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v1n4/greinke14.html> accessed 29 March 2009
[8] Arno R. Lodder, Anja Oskamp and Marius J.A. Duker, ‘AI & Criminal Law: Past, Present & Future’ JURIX 1998 <http://www.jurix.nl/pdf/j98-05.pdf> accessed 30 May 2009
[9] Austin Lovegrove, ‘Statistical Information--Systems as a Means to Consistency and Rationality in Sentencing’ (1999) IJL&IT 1999 7 (31)
[10] Baroness Scotland, ‘Comment: Closing The Justice Gap’, Law Society Gazette, 4 December 2003.
[11] BBC News, ‘Prison overcrowding 'at crisis point'’ BBC News (London Wednesday, 28 August, 2002) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2222022.stm> accessed 20 May 2009
[12] BBC News ‘Murder case bail ban 'problems'’ BBC News (London Tuesday, 17 June 2008)
[13] < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7458211.stm> accessed 5 June 2009
[14] B.E. Leake, Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons, & Future Directions. (AAAI Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996) a
[15] Chan J. 'A Computerised Sentencing Information System for New South Wales Courts' (1991) Computer Law and Practice, 137– 150.
[16] Christos Stergiou and Dimitrios Siganos, 'Neural Networks' <http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html> accessed 29 May 2009
[17] Criminal Justice System, ‘Upholding the Rights of the Defendants’ <http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/defendant/bail/> accessed 18 April 2009
[18] Cyrus Tata, John N. Wilson and Neil Hutton, ‘Representations of Knowledge and Discretionary Decision-Making by Decision- Support Systems: The Case of Judicial Sentencing’ (1996) JILT 1996 (2) <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1996_2/tata> accessed 4 June 2009
[19] D. Brown, ‘Offending on Bail and Police use of Conditional Bail’(1998) Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, Research findings No. 72, London: Home Office, 1998, p.1
[20] Dan Hunter, ‘Commercialising Legal Neural Networks’ (7 May 1996) JILT 1996 (2) <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1996_2/hunter/> accessed 28 June 2009
[21] Daniel C. Richman ‘The Story of United States v. Salerno: The Constitutionality’ (2005). <http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=fordham/flfc> accessed 17 May 2009
[22] David Bainbridge, ‘‘CASE': Computer Assisted Sentencing in Magistrates' Courts’ (2005) 5th BILETA Conference
[23] Dorset Police Force, ‘Bail Conditions’ <http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=1024> accessed 16 May 2009
[24] Emilia Bellucci and John Zeleznikow, ‘Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems that support mediators: a case study of the Family_Winner system’ (2006), Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2): 233-271.
[25] Emilia Bellucci and John Zeleznikow, ‘Representations for decision making support in negotiation’ (2001) Journal of Decision Support, volume 10(3-4): 449-479.
[26] Hubert L. Dreyfus and Stuart E. Dreyfus, ‘From Socrates to Expert Systems: The Limits and Dangers of Calculative Rationality’. <http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/ai/cache/Socrates.html> accessed 25 March 2009
[27] Ivan Potas et al, ‘Informing the Discretion: The Sentencing Information System of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales’, (1998), IJL&IT 1998 6 (99)
[28] J. Hogarth, Sentencing as a Human Process (University of Toronto Press: Toronto 1971).
[29] J. Hogarth, Computer and the Law: Sentencing Database System, User's Guide (Vancouver: LIST Corporation 1988)
[30] James J. Pomykalsk,i Walter F. Truszkowski and Donald E. Brown, ‘Expert Systems’ (1999) <http://agents.gsfc.nasa.gov/papers/pdf/es.pdf> accessed 5 April 2009>
[31] Jean-Charles Pomerol and Patrick Brézillon, ‘Context Proceduralization in Decision Making’. <http://www- poleia.lip6.fr/~brezil/Pages2/Publications/26800491JCP.pdf> accessed 2 April 2009
[32] Jenne Van Der Vinne, Ing. W Van Zwol and M Karnekamp ‘A Sentencing Information System Named 'NOSTRA'’ (1998) IJL&IT 1998 6 (230)
[33] John S. Goldkamp and Michael R. Gottfredson, ‘Bail decision making and pre-trial detention Surfacing judicial policy’ (2005) Springer Netherlands, Law and Human Behaviour [34] J Zeleznikow and A Stranieri, ‘Split up: an intelligent decision support system which provides advice upon property division following divorce’(1998) IJLIT 6(2):190-213; Oxford University Press
[35] Joseph A. Cannataci, ‘Law, liability and expert systems’ (1989) AI & Society Volume 3, Number 3 / July, [1989] 169-183
[36] Joseph Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation, (W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, NY, USA, 1976)
[37] J.T. St. Johanser and R.M. Harbridge, Validating Expert systems: Problems and Solutions in Practice (KBS-86, London, 1986)
[38] K. White, ‘From ‘Knowing’ to Legal Knowledge: Using Early Twentieth Century Canadian Murder Trials to Problematize Knowledge Management Technology’ (2004) CAUT Law Forum - Winnipeg, 2004
[39] Kenneth Russell, ‘Electronic Monitoring’ (1987) New Law Journal, 20 March 1987.
[40] Larry Laudan, Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology, (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law, CUP, Cambridge 2005)
[41] Laurie L. Levenson , ‘Detention, material witnesses & the war on terrorism’, (2003) <http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v35- issue4/levenson.pdf> accessed 28 June 2009
[42] Legal Services Commission, ‘What is bail?’ (South Australia, Law handbook) <http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch02s03s01.php> accessed 6 June 2009
[43] Lisa M. Seghetti and Alison M. Smith, ‘CRS Report for Congress, Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Background, Legal Analysis, and Policy Options’ Updated June 30, 2007 <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32766.pdf> accessed 3 June 2009
[44] M. J. J. Hall et. al., ‘Supporting discretionary decision-making with Information Technology: A study in the criminal sentencing jurisdiction’, (2005) University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal
21. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 65
[45] Marco Costa, Orlando Sousa and José Neves, ‘An Architecture to Legal Distributed Case Repositories’, (1998) JURIX <http://www.jurix.nl/pdf/j98-02.pdf> accessed June 26 2009
[46] Mary T. Phillips, ‘Release and bail conditions in New York’ (2004) New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Research brief No. 6, August 2004 <http://www.cjareports.org/reports/brief6.pdf> accessed 7 June 2009
[47] Michael White and Andrew Sparrow, ‘Conservatives unveil plan to reform bail system’ Guardian (London 11 August 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/11/justice.conservatives> accessed 17 May 2009
[48] N. Hutton, A. Patterson, C. Tata, and J.N Wilson,. 'Decision Support for Sentencing in a Common Law Jurisdiction' (1995) Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95), .89–95. Washington D.C.: ACM Press.
[49] N. Hutton, C. Tata, and J.N Wilson, 'Sentencing and Information Technology: Incidental Reform?' (1996) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 3(2): 255–285.
[50] N. Hutton, A. Paterson, C. Tata, and J.N Wilson, ‘A Sentencing Information System for the Scottish High Court of Justiciary’ (Scottish Office Central Research Unit: Edinburgh 1996);
[51] Neil Corre and David Wolchover, Bail in Criminal Proceedings, (3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2004) Chapter 1: Right to bail
[52] Nigel Morris, ‘Rise in prison suicides blamed on overcrowding’ The Independent (London Friday, 17 June 2005) <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rise-in-prison-suicides-blamed-on-overcrowding-494408.html> accessed 19 May 2009
[53] Patricia Hassett, ‘Can Expert Systems Improve the Exercise of Judicial Discretion?’ 91992) In: Grütters, C.A.F.M., J.A.P.J. Breuker, H.J. van den Herik, A.H.J. Schmidt and C.N.J. de Vey Mestdagh (eds), Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Information Technology & Law, JURIX'92, Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, NL, 992. <http://www.jurix.nl/pdf/j92-19.pdf > accessed 24 June 2009
[54] Patricia Hassett, ‘A Prototype Expert System For Making Bail Recommendations’, (1992) 7th BILETA Conference, Information Technology and Legal Education: Towards 2000, 9th & 10th April 1992
[55] Patricia Hassett, ‘Can Expert System Technology Contribute to Improved Bail Decisions?’ (1993) International Journal of Law and Information Technology. Vol. 1 No. 2 Summer
[56] Patricia Hassett, ‘Problems in Selecting Effective Computer Technology for Use at the Bail Stage of the Criminal Justice System’ (1990) Proceeding of the 2nd National Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence
[57] Patricia Hassett, ‘An Expert System for Improving the Pre-trial Release/Detention Decision’ (1991). Pre-Proceedings of the 6th Annual BILETA Conference
[58] P. Alldridge, "Anoraks among the suits and jeans computers, law and the legal academy", (1997) Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT).
[59] Paralegal Advisory Service (PAS), ‘What is bail?’ (2004) <www.penalreform.org/resources/bro-2004- what-is-bail-en.pdf> accessed 16 May 2009
[60] Patricia M Morgan and Paul F Henderson, ‘Remand decisions and offending on bail: evaluation of the Bail Process Project’ (London: Home Office, 1998) Home Office Research Studies
[61] <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors184.pdf> accessed 18 May 2009
[62] Peter Wilcock and Joel Bennathan, ‘The new bail system’ (2004) New Law Journal Issue 7126
[63] Prison Reform Trust, ‘Five ways to stem prison overcrowding’, (2005) <http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/subsection.asp?id=349> accessed 20 May 2009
[64] Robert Jago, ‘Civil and Criminal Procedure’ <http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/civ_crim/criminal_procedure_ch11.pdf> accessed 8 June 2009
[65] Samantha Besson, ‘Four Arguments Against Compromising Justice Internally’, (2003) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1 June 2003
[66] Schmatt E. 'Judicial Information Research System (JIRS)' (1996) Judicial Officers Bulletin 8(7): 49–50. Judicial Commission of New South Wales.
[67] Sharon Hanson, Legal method and reasoning, (2nd Edition Cavendish Pub Ltd, London 2003)
[68] Sophie Goodchild, ‘Public at risk from prison overcrowding’ The Independent (London Sunday, 21 January 200) < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/public-at-risk-from-prison-overcrowding-433075.html> accessed 20 May 2009
[69] Stephen Jones , ‘Guilty until Proved Innocent? The Diminished Status of Suspects at the Point of Remand and as Unconvicted Prisoners’, (2003) Common Law World Review, 1 December 2003.
[70] Steve Chanenson, Marc Miller and Ron Wright ‘Users and Uses of Sentencing Data’ 92006) NASC Annual Conference <http://www.ussc.gov/states/2006conf/Chanenson%20Miller%20Wright%20Tata%20Hutton%20Plenary%20- %20Policy%20Shaping.pdf> accessed 1 June 2009
[71] Susan Edwards, ‘What shall we do with a frightened witness?’ (1989) New Law Journal, 22 December 1989.
[72] The Sentencing Commission for Scotland, ‘The Scope to Improve Consistency in Sentencing’ Report – 2006 <http://www.scottishsentencingcommission.gov.uk/docs/consistency/Consistency%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf> accessed 30 May 2009
[73] The Law Commission, ‘Bail and the Human Right Act 1998: Executive Summary’ LawCom No 269, <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc269sum.pdf> accessed 5 June 2009
[74] The Law Commission, ‘Criminal Law: Bail and The Human Rights Act 1998: A Summary’ (1999) Consultation Paper NO 157 <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp157sum.pdf> accessed 17 May 2009
[75] The Journal Online, ‘Bail system in crisis, say police chiefs: Conference call to Executive for crackdown on bail offenders’ The Journal Online (London 20 May 05) <http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1001851.aspx> accessed 4 July 2009
[76] Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof’ (2007) <http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/07GordonPrakkenWalton.pdf> accessed 4 August 2009
[77] U.J Schild, ‘Criminal sentencing and intelligent decision support’, (1998) 6 Artificial Intelligence and Law 151.
[78] U.J Schild and J. Zeleznikow, ‘A comparative study of decision support systems for the sentencing of criminals’ (2008) Journal of Decision Systems, 17 (4):523-552.
[79] United States Sentencing Commission, ‘Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manuals’ (2008) <http://www.ussc.gov/2008guid/GL2008.pdf > accessed 3 June 2009
[80] Y. Hacohen-Kerner and U.J. Schild, ‘Case-based Sentencing Using a Tree of Legal Concepts’, (2001) Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 10, Issue 1 March 2001 , pages 125 - 135
22. Bail Decision Support System
www.theijes.com The IJES Page 66
Cases Lord Russell in R v Rose (1898) 78 LT 119 Linford v Fitzroy (1849) 13 QB 240 at 247; R v Badger (1843) 4 QB 468 at 472 and Osborne V Gough 3 B & P 551. R v Vallet [1951] 1 All ER 231 R(O) v Harrow Crown Court (2003) The Times, 29 May by Kennedy LJ U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)