Försvarsadvokaters the behaviour of the process, and the marketing was criticized earlier this year by a åklagarkollega. The examples were many, and the criticism was echoed by others. Of the 64 they have now responded to the criticism. Or, more to the point, they addressed the criticism away from themselves and toward the prosecutor.
the Attorneys claim that prosecutors often prosecute as we know it will be rejected. It is a harsh word. It is a claim that prosecutors often commit misconduct. With the intention of. The statistics are clearly against it. About 93-94% of the cases lead to a conviction. Those who take the view that the figure should be much higher, do not understand the straffrättsprocessen. This may possibly be used in order to criticise the public prosecutor in order to bring in order to get a prosecution. And, interestingly enough, is. Some of the lawyers sometimes argue that the prosecutor, in some cases, the investigation of the early stage. However, this criticism will, of course, by then, the lawyer has a very different role, as the lawyer of your choice.
Otherwise, we would not have to comply with the mandate which the legislature has given us, and to bring the perpetrators of the crimes of. The evidence of risk, namely, that disappear when the person finds out that he is a suspect. It is often in a hurry, and the balance between the different interests can be difficult. In retrospect, with all facts on the table, sure some of the decisions being criticised.
To be as professional lawyers, so the thought seems to take over a client’s point of view that the prosecutor only wants to ‘bust’ him, I have less of an understanding of the.
But in a statement to the public prosecutor, often deliberately and in breach of the rules, among other things, in order to generate as much attention as possible, it is difficult to take seriously. A suspect has a different point of view, if the element of compulsion which is needed in an investigation, which I can understand. However, professional lawyers, so the thought seems to take over a client’s point of view that the prosecutor only wants to ‘bust’ him, I have less of an understanding of the.
for Example, given the prosecutors ‘major failure’. The majority of the cases are long, they are curious, and most of that is a bad example of the principle that the prosecution should not be brought to court. Regardless of the form of these examples is hardly any basis for the allegations of error, the prosecutors ”frequently” commit of the day.
The Quick – and-Prosolviamålen started over 15 years ago. Playamålet was charged in 2012, and the Trustorutredningen started about 20 years ago. There are probably very few people who actually believe that it was wrong to bring the prosecution in the Trustormålet, and if you read the decision of the court of the Playa, it should be considered to be in the same place. To the court, sometimes to the dislike of a criminal prosecution is in order, it gave a different matter.
There is a problem, and the reasons for this are many: lack of resources, waiting lists in the National forensiskt the city centre, are the wrong approach, the other cases in the ports before and so on. A second reason is that, as mentioned in the ”study of law, and the major criminal cases” as FOLLOWS in 2017:7, that our criminal justice system is ill-suited to a major goal, and that it is ”överutreds”. A number of proposals in order to come to grips with it, and, thus, to reduce the lead-time is that, in the past, ensure hearing by the bevispersoner of the COUNCIL to 2017:98). The bar association is opposed to the proposal, and any other changes that bring the code into line with today’s realities.
the Lawyers seem to want to have a system in which he or she may be personally responsible for the payment to process and for which the defendant is given the right to change the prosecutor in certain circumstances. A kind of privatisation process.
In the article it is claimed that the prosecutors deliberately delay the investigation. I actually don’t have to take seriously.
The checks that are mentioned in the article are present and functioning. A public prosecutor can be indicted for dereliction of duty, fired, or reassigned. It’s all happening. We are audited regularly by, inter alia, the WELL, the attorney general, BY and. And, of course, of the courts of the country. We will have a review within the agency: the challenge, as well as a tillsynsavdelning as a regular target of criticism of the decision by an individual prosecutor.
the Lawyers seem to want to have a system in which he or she may be personally responsible for the payment to process and for which the defendant is given the right to change the prosecutor in certain circumstances. A kind of privatisation process. Think the lawyers that this would create a prosecutor with the courage, integrity, and vigor have the energy to run and hard target for a long period of time? I think – please correct me if I am wrong – that there is such a prosecutor, which both the legislature and the public in general would like to have.
<
