Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English legal system is representative of the common law tradition. In England and Wales, the modern public prosecution system was only created in the last quarter of the 20th century which was very recent when compared to other countries. This study aims to explore why the English system of criminal justice established the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS was created by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This set up an independent public prosecution system in order to improve efficiency and protect the interests of the defendants by separating the prosecution from investigation and preserving the filtering role of the prosecutors. Before the establishment of the CPS, the police in fact exercise the prosecution. However, the prosecution by the police created an unclear border between the investigation and prosecution. Such a functional mixture caused problems such as the prosecutions of evidentiary weak cases or ‘overcharging’ because police involvement restricted the prosecutor’s role as a filter to screen the results of the investigation. The development of the CPS shows the direction to which the Korean system of criminal justice should flow. Korean prosecutor’s direct involvement in the investigation can cause problems which were already observed in the English system as it leads to the functional mixture of investigation and prosecution. The roles and powers of the prosecution service must be reformed to recover their role as a significant filter in screening the result of investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".