Improving New Zealand's prosecution system: A practical reform proposal to avoid miscarriages of justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses a practical reform proposal to prevent miscarriages of justice arising from prosecutorial (or police) misconduct, namely to allow only Crown solicitors the power to lay charges relating to certain crimes. Crown solicitors would perform an analysis of the evidence obtained at an early stage of the police investigation, and make a decision whether new lines of enquiry should be followed, or existing ones built upon, prior to determining whether charges should be brought by the Crown. This would increase the quality of decision-making at the early stages of a case, reducing the potential for intervention at the appellate level on the basis of a miscarriage of justice. As we shall see, not only is this reform in keeping with sweeping policies recently adopted in England and Wales, and longer-standing policies in Canada and Australia; it also provides direct and indirect cost savings throughout the system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".