Advanced search options

Advanced Search Options 🞨

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

in
/  
in
/  
in
/  
in

Written in Published in Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by

Results per page:

You searched for subject:(Taiwanese Screening Mechanism). One record found.

Search Limiters

Last 2 Years | English Only

No search limiters apply to these results.

▼ Search Limiters


University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign

1. Wen, Tzu-Te. Reforming the mechanism for screening prosecutorial charging decision in Taiwan.

Degree: J.S.D., 0281, 2014, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign

For years, prosecutors in Taiwan have been faced with criticism from scholars, lawyers, and judges over the abuse or errors of prosecutorial charging decision where there is insufficient evidence to indict a case or there is an ill or unjustified motivation or consideration behind the charge, whether those charges are intentionally or erroneously made. These criticisms strongly suggest that the current screening mechanism does not function effectively as a shield to protect the accused and to scrutinize prosecutorial charging decisions. As a result, not only does unwarranted charging inflict a discriminative effect upon defendants, but it also burdens our criminal justice system with inflated caseloads and fosters mistrust of the system by the citizens. The prosecutorial system in Taiwan mainly adopts mandatory prosecution, which means that prosecutors are obligated to charge once the requirement of mandatory prosecution is satisfied, i.e., sufficient evidence to entertain a suspicion that the defendant committed the crime is reached, in felony cases. But in practice, prosecutors retain a large measure of decisions that permit abusive or erroneous charges to be filed. Therefore, the effective screening of prosecutorial charging occupies a critical stage in criminal justice to prevent potential wrongful prosecution and conviction. However, one may infer that the system is seldom being employed to screen charging decisions, given that both the overall offense and the corruption offense dismissal rates are much lower than 1%. Although these statistics are not determinative, they still strongly imply the screening system in Taiwan is ineffective. As such, the current screening mechanism does not ii function effectively as a shield to protect the accused and scrutinize unwarranted charging decisions. The current body of research does point out the problems of prosecutorial charging decision, yet it does not address any prospective solutions. Moreover, it does not propose any reforms to the current screening mechanism or has any evaluation of the current screening mechanism. It is, therefore, the goal of this dissertation to analyze current deficiencies of the mechanism and to institute potential alternatives for screening mechanisms in order to eradicate unfounded or erroneous prosecution. In achieving this goal, the methodology of “comparative analysis” is the major underpinning. Legal theories from various bodies of research are referenced in order to identify the characteristics of the major systems of the United States and France, as well as address the advantages and disadvantages of those screening mechanisms, such as the grand jury and preliminary hearing mechanisms in the United States, and investigating judges (juge d’instruction) in France. These features are then compared and contrasted to Taiwan’s current system to discover the defects in the design of its screening mechanism, including the screening procedure, screener neutrality, evidentiary rule, the right to counsel, the threshold to screening, and… Advisors/Committee Members: Leipold, Andrew D. (advisor), Ross, Jacqueline E. (advisor), Leipold, Andrew D. (Committee Chair), Ross, Jacqueline E. (Committee Chair), Johnson, Eric A. (committee member), Marshall, Anna-Maria (committee member).

Subjects/Keywords: Screening of Charging Decision; Taiwanese Screening Mechanism; United States Screening Mechanism; Judicial Legal Culture; Legal transplant; Comparative Criminal Procedure

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Wen, T. (2014). Reforming the mechanism for screening prosecutorial charging decision in Taiwan. (Thesis). University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/49790

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Wen, Tzu-Te. “Reforming the mechanism for screening prosecutorial charging decision in Taiwan.” 2014. Thesis, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign. Accessed January 24, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/49790.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Wen, Tzu-Te. “Reforming the mechanism for screening prosecutorial charging decision in Taiwan.” 2014. Web. 24 Jan 2020.

Vancouver:

Wen T. Reforming the mechanism for screening prosecutorial charging decision in Taiwan. [Internet] [Thesis]. University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign; 2014. [cited 2020 Jan 24]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/49790.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Wen T. Reforming the mechanism for screening prosecutorial charging decision in Taiwan. [Thesis]. University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign; 2014. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/49790

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

.