dc.contributor.author | Slobogin, Christopher | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-07-11T20:13:51Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-07-11T20:13:51Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 87 Southern California Law Review 699 (2014) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/9254 | |
dc.description | article published in a law review | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | The adversarial system as it is implemented in the United States is a significant cause of wrongful convictions, wrongful acquittals and “wrongful” sentences. Empirical evidence suggests that a hybrid inquisitorial regime would be better than the American-style adversarial system at reducing these erroneous results. This paper proposes the integration of three inquisitorial mechanisms into the American trial process — judicial control over the adjudication process, non-adversarial treatment of experts, and required unsworn testimony by the defendant — and defends the proposals against constitutional and practical challenges. While other scholars have suggested borrowing from overseas, these three proposals have yet to be presented as a package. Together they could measurably enhance the accuracy of the American criminal justice system. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 PDF (36 pages) | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Southern California Law Review | en_US |
dc.subject | wrongful conviction | en_US |
dc.subject | adjudication | en_US |
dc.subject | trial process | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Law | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Criminal law | en_US |
dc.title | Lessons From Inquisitorialism | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.ssrn-uri | https://ssrn.com/abstract=2320103 | |