Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:05 pm
Time: 11:05 pm
Results for criminal prosecutions
2 results foundAuthor: U.S. Department of Justice Title: Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions 2011-2012 Summary: The report, based on data compiled from the case management system used by U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) with Indian Country jurisdiction shows among other things a 54 percent increase in Indian Country criminal prosecutions since Fiscal Year 2009. The information contained in the report shows the following: • The Justice Department’s prioritization of Indian country crime has resulted in a notable increase in commitment to overall law enforcement efforts in Indian country. Caseloads have increased overall from 1,091 cases filed in fiscal year (FY) 2009 to 1,138 in FY 2010 to 1,547 in FY 2011 to 1,677 in FY 2012. This represents a nearly 54 percent increase in the Indian country crime caseload. • USAO data for calendar year (CY) 2011 indicate that just under 37 percent (1,041) of all Indian Country submissions for prosecution (2,840) were declined by USAOs. In CY 2012, USAOs declined approximately 31 percent (965) of all (3,145) Indian Country submissions for prosecution. Overall, a substantial majority of Indian Country criminal cases opened by USAOs were prosecuted. • The most common reasons for declination by USAOs were insufficient evidence (61 percent in CY 2011 and 52 percent in CY 2012) and referral to another prosecuting authority (19 percent in CY 2011 and 24 percent in CY 2012). • The most common reasons investigations during calendar years CY 2011 and 2012 were not referred included deaths determined to be due to non-criminal causes (e.g., natural causes, accidents, suicides) and allegations in which there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal activity. •The report shows a new era of partnership between the federal government and American Indian tribes, including an unprecedented level of collaboration with tribal law enforcement. The increase in collaboration and communication strengthens the bond of trust between federal and tribal investigators, prosecutors, and other personnel in both federal and tribal criminal justice systems, and it will make communities safer as a result. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2013. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov/tribal/tloa-report-cy-2011-2012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/tribal/tloa-report-cy-2011-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128923 Keywords: Crime Statistics (U.S.)Criminal ProsecutionsIndians of North AmericaNative Americans |
Author: Jacobson, Jessica Title: Joint Enterprise: Righting a Wrong Turn? Report of an exploratory study Summary: Joint enterprise is a doctrine of criminal law which permits two or more defendants to be convicted of the same criminal offence in relation to the same incident, even where they had different types or levels of involvement in the incident. For centuries, it has been an established and relatively uncontentious aspect of the criminal law of England and Wales that an individual who has intentionally assisted or encouraged another to commit an offence can be held liable for that offence; and that both individuals can be convicted even if it is not known which of them committed the essential act and which was the 'accessory'. In recent years, however, there has been growing controversy over the doctrine of joint enterprise. Strong criticisms of both principle and practice have been voiced by lawyers, members of the judiciary, academics, politicians and penal reformers, as well as by individuals prosecuted in joint enterprise cases and their supporters. These criticisms have focused on what is said to be the potential for individuals to be convicted and sentenced, under the doctrine of joint enterprise, for the most serious offences on the basis of highly peripheral involvement in the criminal acts. It is argued that in many such cases the level of participation in the offence was so slight, or the evidential threshold of conviction so low, that the conviction amounts to a substantial injustice. A related criticism is that young men from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups are disproportionately affected or are explicitly targeted by joint enterprise convictions in cases of presumed gang-related violence. It has been argued that joint enterprise operates as a kind of criminal justice 'drag-net', sweeping up large numbers of young people into criminal prosecutions on the basis of their social networks and associations rather than any active involvement in criminality. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2016 at: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Joint%20Enterprise%20Righting%20a%20Wrong%20Turn.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Joint%20Enterprise%20Righting%20a%20Wrong%20Turn.pdf Shelf Number: 146114 Keywords: Criminal CourtCriminal LawCriminal Prosecutions |