Jörg-Martin Jehle

Prosecution in Europe: Varying Structures, Convergent Trends

Chapter 2 of the European Sourcebook attempts to show the differences as well as the common features of the prosecution services of the Council of Europe Member States. In order to do so the following five categories of statistics were collected: the total number of cases the prosecuting authority recorded as having been dealt with within a particular year; the number of cases brought before a court; the number of cases dropped; the number of cases dropped conditionally; the number of cases ended by the imposition of a sanction. The prosecution statistics of the European countries studied vary because of differences in the input structures. They are also affected by variations in output structures. These are determined by the powers that the prosecution authorities themselves possess. These variations between the prosecution systems within Europe cause significant differences in the resulting statistics and must be borne in mind when analysing the European Sourcebook data.

How to Record Data on Community Sanctions and Measures and the Work of Probation Agencies across Europe: The Approach of the European Sourcebook

The European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics (ESB) is an endeavor to collect comparable crime and criminal justice data across Europe. Currently, the ESB experts group is carrying out a project on community and measures and the work of probation agencies together with the European Organisation for Probation (CEP). Its results will, inter alia, be published in the upcoming 5th edition of the ESB. In this article, we describe the aims and methodology of the project and compare it to SPACE II, a data collection initiative by the Council of Europe.

Was und wie häufig sind Fehlurteile

ZusammenfassungSpektakuläre Gerichtsverfahren mit vermeintlichen oder tatsächlichen Fehlurteilen erregen fallweise die deutsche Öffentlichkeit; es fehlt aber an einer aktuellen systematischen Untersuchung der Fehlerquellen im Strafverfahren. Der Aufsatz skizziert, was unter Fehlurteilen bzw. Fehlentscheidungen verstanden werden kann, und berichtet über die Untersuchung von Fehlurteilen in Amerika sowie einigen europäischen Ländern. Bezogen auf die deutsche Situation weist er zunächst auf mögliche Fehlerquellen im Ermittlungsverfahren hin, bevor er sich dem Rechtsmittelverfahren zuwendet und anhand von statistischen Zahlen abzuschätzen versucht, wie häufig erstinstanzliche Urteile falsch sind. Weiter werden die sehr restriktiven Voraussetzungen von Wiederaufnahmeverfahren angesprochen, und abschließend wird dafür plädiert, Fehlerquellen im Strafprozess systematisch empirisch zu untersuchen sowie rechtspolitisch die Möglichkeiten der Wiederaufnahme zu erleichtern.AbstractSpectacular trials leading to alleged or proven wrongful convictions arouse the concern of the German public. In spite of that there is no current systematic analysis of sources of error in criminal procedures. This article defines what may be recognized as a wrongful conviction or wrongful decision and gives an account of studies on wrongful convictions in America and some European countries. Concerning the German situation, firstly possible sources of error in preliminary proceedings are highlighted and then the outcomes of appeals are analyzed, thus estimating the quantity of wrongful convictions by courts in the first instance on the basis of statistical data. Furthermore, the very restrictive prerequisites for retrials are discussed. Concluding, the author argues for a systematic empirical analysis of sources of error in criminal proceedings and a facilitation of the prerequisites for retrials.

Dealing with Various Offence Types in Different Criminal Justice Systems — Case Examples

A full picture of the national criminal justice systems and their workings is presented in the country reports in this volume as well as in the study questionnaires. However, the sheer volume of information makes it difficult not to lose sight of what these differences or common features mean in practice. In order to present the systems studied comparatively in a less abstract way and to show the study results more tangibly, a few case examples were developed and the partners asked to describe the most likely handling the cases would receive through their criminal justice systems. The examples were chosen to facilitate a demonstration of some basic differences within and between the systems and to illustrate the different procedural forms discussed in the study.

Rezeption und Reform im japanischen und deutschen Recht

Grundlage des Bandes bildet das Zweite Rechtswissenschaftliche Symposion Gottingen – Kansai zu „Rezeption und Reform im deutschen und japanischen Recht“, das im September 2006 unter masgeblicher Beteiligung von rechtswissenschaftlichen Kollegen der Kansai-Universitat Osaka und der Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen abgehalten wurde. Ihm war ein Erstes Symposion unter dem Titel „Neue Herausforderungen fur Recht und Rechtswissenschaft“ in Osaka vorausgegangen.