Search

Search Results

• Less is Sometimes More? The Guaranteeing Role of the Scope of the Second Instance Review in the first Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure (Act XXXIII of 1896)

  93-105

  Bálint Csaba Kelemen

  Views:

  221

  At the time of the codification of first Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure, the legal literature regarded the limited scope of second-instance revision as a limitation of appeal in favour of the defendant, and placed it in this sense inside the procedural doctrinal system. This idea, which is quite alien to contemporary procedural thinking, which focuses on speeding up and facilitating proceedings, raises the question: what are the principles on which the limited scope of review is considered as a guarantee for the defendant? In order to answer this question, my aim in the present study is to explore the system of principles that shaped the turn-of-the-century jurisprudence concerning the legal power of the second instance to grant review.

• Some theoretical and Practical Issues of Sentencing

  11-25

  Ágnes Pápai-Tarr

  Views:

  357

  Sentencing is connected to the trial stage of the criminal procedure; more precisely, it takes place at its end. Judges fulfil only a part, and not even the hardest one, of their duty by establishing criminal liability as a result of the evidentiary procedure. Sentencing is a rather complex and complicated process. Judges face a lot of expectations: they often have to reconcile contradictory expectations with each other in order to impose a satisfactory sentence for the parties. The process of sentencing has received intense criticism. Sometimes judges are accused of imposing unduly lenient sentences or criticized for too severe punishments.

  Another problem is presented by the fact that different sentences are passed for crimes of the same sort at different courts in the country. Sentencing thus raises many theoretical questions that I seek to answer in the study.