|
Edinburgh Research Archive >
Law, School of >
Law thesis and dissertation collection >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6183
|
| Title: | Exclusionary rule of evidence in the United Kingdom, United States and China |
| Authors: | Hsieh, Kuo-Hsing |
| Supervisor(s): | Bankowski, Zenon Chalmers, James |
| Issue Date: | 22-Nov-2011 |
| Publisher: | The University of Edinburgh |
| Abstract: | If there is any fixed star in our constitutional and criminal procedure constellation, it
is that torture is illegal and torture-introduced evidence is inadmissible. The purposes
of this research are to (1) assess the exclusionary rule in the United Kingdom and
United States; (2) explore the theoretical constitutional foundation of the rule; and (3)
establish the Chinese exclusionary rule. Currently, there is no exclusionary rule
explicitly in the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure. If the wrongful conviction of
the innocent is a pressing issue in China today, police torture is the flashpoint. Police
torture in China is the prevalent evil not the isolated anecdote. This thesis combines
diagnosis and prescription – the problem of police torture in China and the solution
of the exclusionary rule. The ultimate goal of the research is to find a suitable
exclusionary rule for China to solve the serious problem of police torture and
wrongdoing.
At the level of theory, my exclusionary rule framework is grounded in the
separation of powers. Previous research about the separation of powers doctrine has
focused almost entirely on constitutional law and political theory. They completely
ignored the special role that the doctrine plays in the criminal justice system, a role
consisting of the exercise of a reviewing function to ensure executive compliance
with the criminal law. Separation of powers is a core component of the constitution’s
system of checks and balances, a system in which each branch of the government is
endowed with a constitutional control over the others.
Without any judicial supervision or due process, the potential for arbitrary
enforcement is high. The alternatives to the exclusionary rule are mainly illusory and
of no practical avail. Past history also demonstrates that the very idea of protecting
the defendant’s right is completely empty unless it is linked to an efficient
mechanism. China grants the police too much power and has too little judicial
supervision over police investigations. It creates imbalance in the existing Chinese
criminal justice system. It is such an imbalance and the lack of separation of powers
in the criminal justice system that poses a significant and growing threat for the
protection of defendants’ rights. |
| Keywords: | exclusionary rule criminal justice torture |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6183 |
| Appears in Collections: | Law thesis and dissertation collection
|
Items in ERA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
|