The feasibility of adopting of a private prosecution system in Korea
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Criminal justice refers to the institutional framework established by society to enforce criminal law. The common law system, adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, is characterized by judge-made precedent, adversarial procedure, and a historical openness to privately initiated prosecutions. Prosecutorial institutions in common law jurisdictions evolved from a system centered on private prosecutions to one in which the state gradually assumed primary responsibility for criminal charges. In contrast, the civil law system—prevalent in continental Europe and in many countries influenced by its legal tradition—is based on comprehensive statutory codes. Under this framework, the state typically exercises exclusive authority over criminal prosecutions, and private prosecutions are rarely permitted. Public prosecutions refers to a system in which criminal proceedings are initiated and controlled by state authorities. The state determines whether to bring charges, what charges are appropriate, and how the case should proceed. Most civil law jurisdictions, as well as many modern common law jurisdictions, adopt this model, emphasizing uniformity, impartiality, and public accountability in the enforcement of criminal law. Private prosecutions, by contrast, is a mechanism through which a private individual or organization initiates criminal proceedings. Although crime constitutes an offense against public order, the private prosecutor gathers evidence, files charges, and conducts the case before the court. This mechanism remains available in certain common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, although the state—primarily the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Prosecution Service—retains authority to take over and continue or terminate such proceedings. Private prosecutions illustrates an alternative method of initiating criminal proceedings that may complement a system based on prosecutorial exclusivity. Its comparative study enhances understanding of how different legal traditions allocate prosecutorial power and ensure access to justice. This study examines the feasibility of adopting elements of a private prosecution system within the public-prosecution framework currently used in Korea.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it