| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
190907
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the mid-2000s, the fear of “homegrown” terrorism in most developed democracies has prodded police to partner with local Muslim communities as a proactive and preventive approach to Islamic extremism. However, despite practical variations, this model of counterterrorism community policing (“CTCP”) has faced a comparable challenge—the lack of legal and moral legitimacy within counterterrorism law enforcement which erodes Muslim communities’ trust and confidence in policing. Drawing on common critiques of CTCP in the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, this article aims to proffer a behavioral-economics view to promote intended goals of CTCP. Borrowing the ideas of Nudge Theory, my discussion suggests that community engagement within CTCP could be stimulated more effectively through a subtle process of trust building whereby residents are coaxed toward cooperation through indirect encouragement, assistance and facilitation. Through a case study of CTCP in Muslim communities, it is argued that nudge entails the refrainment of the political and media narrative from conflating Islamist ideology with the prime source of domestic terrorist danger. At the grassroots level, the nudge-oriented CTCP is contingent upon community representatives taking on a more active and forefront role in CTCP with police reducing their visibility to only facilitate in the background.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
186062
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2016, China instituted an “Admission of Guilt and Acceptance of Punishment” (plea leniency) system to formalize the legal system’s approach to guilty pleas in criminal proceedings. To legitimize this new justice scheme, it decreed that every accused must be provided with access to legal representation to safeguard the voluntariness and accuracy of the plea. This article examines this mandatory defense counsel assistance and questions the extent to which Chinese lawyers comply with the legislative goal. Based on interviews with 34 lawyers who have served as defense attorneys in Shanghai, it is found that lawyers in plea leniency cases are essentially confined to three peripheral roles—“explainer,” “persuader,” and “observer.” Instead of conducting earnest work in plea negotiations and legal counseling, Chinese lawyers often “collegially” cooperate with criminal justice agencies (gongjianfa 公检法) to urge the accused to admit they are guilty. The findings indicate that the state’s paramount concern for efficiency inherently marginalizes counsel’s bargaining position. Pragmatic considerations also influence the defense counsel’s conduct: a desire to maintain a beneficial relationship with legal authorities and unwillingness to challenge the generally accusatory, draconian, and conviction-centered nature of Chinese criminal proceedings. Overall, plea leniency catalyzes a further emasculated role for lawyers, who function primarily as a mechanical constituent of the country’s increasingly monotonous assembly-line version of criminal justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|