The right to a fair trial has grown in importance over the past few decades as criminal procedures and human rights law have aligned themselves more and more closely. A core aspect of our current ...European understanding of a ‘fair criminal trial’ is the so-called ‘equality of arms’, which requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. In cases which affect more than one jurisdiction – either because an alleged crime causes damage in different countries, evidence is located abroad or for some other reason – the accused and his defence lawyer may be left without any such a guarantee in the legal ‘black hole’ between the protections that are normally offered by each of the jurisdictions involved, albeit separately.The situation is not one of a dramatic alteration of legal frameworks; instead, it is the small encroachments caused by transnational cooperation that matter and which can be summed up on the basis that domestic and foreign prosecution authorities have, effectively, closed the circuit between them. These authorities are now embedded in formal networks which would have, for instance, the possibility to forum shop (i.e. to choose the ‘best place’ to prosecute). The emerging EU legal framework that has been built on mutual recognition and installing new central agencies has added to the problems faced by the defence. Moreover, the existing legal regimes designed to protect do not grant ‘equality of arms’ in the space between jurisdictions: national law usually provides few answers and international law, including the likes of the ECHR or the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, do not offer many solutions, either.This article therefore argues that an aspiring ‘right to a fair trial’ or, rather, an entitlement to equality of arms as a general principle of transnational criminal justice that would empower the defendant and his defence to present their case under conditions that do not place the accused at a substantial disadvantage in transnational cases, would be highly beneficial and serve to fill in a missing piece in the puzzle of achieving ‘a world wholly governed by law’.
Criminal proof is unique, in that it must be able to account for the justification of both: accurate fact-finding and a fair trial. This is Sarah Summers’ main message in her article on the epistemic ...ambitions of the criminal trial, which focusses on belief as a sort of proxy for societal acceptance of truth as a set of facts established by compliance to procedural rules. This commentary tests her finding by scrutinizing whether it is conceivable that robots, complying to all rules, assist in fact-finding with a specific form of legal belief based on a sophisticated probability weighting opaque to humans. The result is in accordance with Sarah Summers: as long as robots cannot explain their beliefs, any criminal proof based on them flounders as it can neither be part of a fair trial nor ensure acceptance in the existing institutional framework.
Criminal proof is unique, in that it must be able to account for the justification of both: accurate fact-finding and a fair trial. This is Sarah Summers’ main message in her article on the epistemic ...ambitions of the criminal trial, which focusses on belief as a sort of proxy for societal acceptance of truth as a set of facts established by compliance to procedural rules. This commentary tests her finding by scrutinizing whether it is conceivable that robots, complying to all rules, assist in fact-finding with a specific form of legal belief based on a sophisticated probability weighting opaque to humans. The result is in accordance with Sarah Summers: as long as robots cannot explain their beliefs, any criminal proof based on them flounders as it can neither be part of a fair trial nor ensure acceptance in the existing institutional framework.
Der Einsatz von Robotern in vielen Lebensbereichen rückt ein Grundanliegen des Rechts neu in den Fokus: die möglichst klare Zuweisung von Verantwortung. Als technologische Innovation wirft die ...Digitalisierung bestimmter Vorgänge die Frage nach der Angemessenheit unserer Haftungskonzepte auf. Wenn Intelligente Agenten, sei es als Roboterautos, Prothesen oder Bewässerungsanlagen, einen Schaden verursachen, weil sie im autonomen Modus Daten nicht richtig aufnehmen, falsch interpretieren oder unpassend reagieren, stellt sich die Frage: Haften die Menschen hinter der Maschine? Die Frage nach der Verantwortung für Intelligente Agenten ist aber weder neu, noch beschränkt sie sich auf die Rechtswissenschaft. Sie wurde bereits im römischen Recht diskutiert und beschäftigt heute die Technikfolgenabschätzung. Der vorliegende Band spannt den Bogen von der Antike zur Moderne und von den Grundlagenfragen zur Anwendung in der Versicherungswirtschaft, im intelligenten Verkehr oder im smarten Haus.Mit Beiträgen von:Prof. Dr. Christian Armbrüster, Freie Universität Berlin; Prof. Dr. Jan Dirk Harke, Universität Würzburg; Prof. Dr. Gerhard Seher, Freie Universität Berlin; Prof. Dr. Ruth Janal, LL.M., Freie Universität Berlin; Univ.-Prof. Dr. Cosima Möller, Freie Universität Berlin; Prof. Dr. Michael Decker, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe; Dr. iur. Jonathan Erhardt, BA, Universität Bern; Prof. Dr. Martino Mona, Universität Bern, Prof. Dr. Sabine Gless, Universität Basel; Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Kurt Seelmann, Universität Basel sowie Prof. Dr. iur. Dipl.-Biol. Herbert Zech, Universität Basel
A fundamental concern of law is newly foregrounded by the employment of robots: the most precise allocation of charge. Faced with digitalization the question of the aptness of liability concepts ...again arises and can be answered in view of ancient history, the foundations of law or current practice.
Technological developments enable modern cars to drive autonomously. The EU has embraced this phenomenon in the hope that such technology can ameliorate mobility and environmental problems and has ...therefore engaged in tailoring technical solutions to driving automation in Europe. But driving automation, like other uses of AI, raises novel legal issues, including in criminal law – for instance when such vehicles malfunction and cause serious harm. By only pushing for a technological standard for self-driving cars, are EU lawmakers missing necessary regulatory aspects? In this article, we argue that criminal law ought to be reflected in EU strategy and offer a proposal to fill the current gap, suggesting an approach to allocate criminal liability when humans put AI systems in the driver’s seat.
Sind Forschungsdaten der empirischen Kriminalitätsforschung vor dem Zugriff der Strafverfolgungsbehörden geschützt? Diese Frage erhält durch einen Beschlagnahmebeschluss des OLG München vom 23. ...Januar 2020 neue Aktualität (s. unten A.I.). Antworten auf der Grundlage des geltenden Rechts - einerseits §§ 53 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 5, Abs. 2, 97 Abs. 5 StPO (s. unten B.I.1.) und andererseits §§ 136, 136a StPO (s. unten B.I.2.) - bieten zwar behelfsmäßige Lösungen, aber ein klares Bekenntnis des Gesetzgebers zu robusten Bedingungen für empirische Sozialforschung fehlt und in der Praxis drohen Schutzlücken. Dadurch geraten empirische Sozialforscher, die sowohl durch Gesetz als auch durch wissenschaftsethische Vorgaben zur Geheimhaltung verpflichtet sein können, in ein Dilemma, dessen Auflösung im geltenden Recht die Strafverfolgungsbehörden und die Gerichte im Lichte der Forschungsfreiheit leisten müssten (vgl. unten B.II.). Initiativen zur Etablierung eines spezifischen Zeugnisverweigerungsrechts für empirische Sozialforscher und entsprechende Beschlagnahmeverbote scheiterten bisher am politischen Willen (s. unten A.II.). Das steht augenscheinlich im Widerspruch zu dem Wunsch nach belastbaren Ergebnissen empirischer Kriminalitätserforschung als Voraussetzung evidenzbasierter Kriminalpolitik und birgt Konfliktpotential, insbesondere mit dem Ausbau datenschutzrechtlicher Vorgaben für die Forschung und damit verbundener Vertraulichkeitszusagen. Sollte die Gesellschaft in der Zukunft die Erfüllung politischer Versprechen im Bereich der Kriminalpolitik an einer Zahlenbasis messen wollen, ist sie darauf angewiesen, dass der Gesetzgeber die Bedingungen dafür schafft. Der Zugriff von Strafverfolgungsbehörden auf Daten aus empirischer Kriminalitätsforschung muss explizit im Sinne der Forschungsfreiheit beschränkt werden.
Do scientists have to hand over research data from empirical research on delinquency? A decision of the OLG Munich (23 January 2020, see A.I. below) highlights an issue which is yet to be resolved in the German criminal justice system. Although some legal protection is provided under § 53 para. 1 and § 97 para. 5 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP, see B.I.1. below) on the one hand, and § 136 para 1 and § 136a para 3 CCP (see B.I.2. below) on the other these makeshift solutions fall short in practice. What is required is a clear commitment by the legislature to robust conditions for empirical research. Otherwise researchers, bound to secrecy by law as well as by scientific-ethical guidelines, find themselves in a dilemma that ought to be resolved by law in favor of their freedom of research (see B.II. below). Initiatives to establish a specific privilege for empirical data coming from criminological researchers have, however, so far failed (see below A.II.). This contradicts the wish for empirical crime research as a prerequisite for evidence-based criminal policy. If society wants to be able to measure the keeping of political promises in the field of crime policy on the basis of empirical research, it is necessary that the legislature creates appropriate conditions, among them the stipulation of obligations to protect crime research data from law enforcement and prosecution.
Tradutores: Heloisa Estellita e Miguel Lima Carneiro Tradução do texto: GLESS, SABINE. PREDICTIVE POLICING – IN DEFENSE OF ‘TRUE POSITIVES’. IN: BAYAMLIO LU, EMRE; BARALIUC, IRINA; JANSSENS, LIISA; ...HILDEBRANDT, MIREILLE (ED.). BEING PROFILED: COGITAS ERGO SUM. 10 YEARS OF PROFILING THE EUROPEAN CITIZEN, AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2018. P. 76-83. Com a ascensão de programas de policiamento preditivo, atuações policiais enviesadas e encarceramentos discriminatórios têm se tornado mais comuns. A problemática decorrente do uso de algoritmos enviesados no policiamento denota a necessidade de ferramentas legais eficientes e capazes de manter a justiça no sistema penal. Para tanto, o uso de regras de inadmissibilidade de provas ilícitas para a proteção dos “verdadeiros positivos” apresenta-se como um remédio legal hábil contra as detenções injustas.
PDF
