The implications of judicial utterances: an examination of the legal basis of murder investigations (1919-1939)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Murder investigation had been a feature of British policing for centuries but by the inter-war period, the legal justification for its operating practices was being called into question. Police responsibility had previously been restricted to the arrest of suspected offenders and placing them before the courts. Now, political, social and legal attention was being paid to the procedural treatment of arrested people and a partial recognition of a new concept of investigation was beginning to emerge. The law governing this area was unclear and attempts by the courts to informally clarify the position was dismissed as mere judicial utterances. The continuing confusion led the police to adopt inconsistent practices but socio-political opinion argued that there were apparent breaches and circumventions of the existing guidance but which attracted little criticism from the courts. There existed a fundamental disagreement between parliament, the Home Office, the police and the courts about the nature of an investigation. No legislation was introduced to clarify the position. This was caused partly by a lack of understanding of the criminal investigation process and a lack of recognition that the police had developed into a more meaningful investigative body. This position of an unstable and ambiguous legal landscape was exacerbated by legislation which mandated that the primary responsibility for the investigation of murder remained with the historic office of coroner. A duality of process existed where suspected offenders appeared both at an inquest and magistrates’ proceedings. This led to an inefficient police investigative process and one where the integrity of evidence was being compromised. The combined position of an unstable investigative framework, and an outdated attitude towards which body had primacy in murder investigations, created a dysfunctional legal environment which did not allow inter-war police to lawfully and effectively perform its role.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle