Perspectives on introducing AI into criminal justice, NAKAGAWA TAKAHIRO, Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology, 24巻, 1号, 19, 23, 20 Oct. 2024
Perspectives on introducing AI into criminal justice, NAKAGAWA TAKAHIRO, Japanese Journal of Law and・・・
Perspectives on introducing AI into criminal justice, NAKAGAWA TAKAHIRO, Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology, 24巻, 1号, 19, 23, 20 Oct. 2024
369, 391, 31 May 2024
118, 88, 95, 20 Apr. 2024
523, 17, 21, 01 Apr. 2024
33, 51, 82, 31 Mar. 2024
267号, 120, 121, 30 Mar. 2024
60巻, 4号, 245, 272, 10 Mar. 2023
113号, 94, 99, 20 Jan. 2023
416, 435, 10 Nov. 2022
59巻, 4号, 31, 68, 10 Mar. 2022
Principle of Free Evaluation and Opinions of Psychologist, Takahiro Nakagawa, Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology, 21巻, 1号, 1, 7, 25 Dec. 2021, This study reveals the rhetoric of judicial precedents that invoke the principle of free evaluation of evidence as a reason for rejecting opinions of psychologist. It then considers measures for judges to utilize psychological knowledge.
Principle of Free Evaluation and Opinions of Psychologist, Takahiro Nakagawa, Japanese Journal of La・・・
Principle of Free Evaluation and Opinions of Psychologist, Takahiro Nakagawa, Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology, 21巻, 1号, 1, 7, 25 Dec. 2021, This study reveals the rhetoric of judicial precedents that invoke the principle of free evaluation of evidence as a reason for rejecting opinions of psychologist. It then considers measures for judges to utilize psychological knowledge.
351, 364, 30 Jul. 2021
858, 877, 10 Dec. 2020
29号, 5, 24, 20 Mar. 2020
96号, 101, 105, 20 Oct. 2018
10 Jun. 2018
91号, 20 Jul. 2017
90号, 20 Apr. 2017
23 Mar. 2017
171, 194, 31 Aug. 2016
25号, 20 Mar. 2016
8号, 27 Nov. 2015
490号, 05 Jul. 2014
51巻4号, 10 Mar. 2014
357, 377, 12 Jan. 2014
43, 64, 16 Jun. 2013
20 Dec. 2012
33号, 20 Aug. 2012
84巻9号, 01 Aug. 2012
68号, 10 Oct. 2011
767, 794, 25 Sep. 2011
69号, 31 Mar. 2011
65号, 10 Jan. 2011
01 Jan. 2010
658号, 01 Oct. 2009
59号, 01 Jul. 2009
52号, 16, 17, 01 Oct. 2007
630号, 24, 26, 01 Jun. 2007
46巻3号, 301, 316, 01 Mar. 2007
307号, 327, 420, 01 Oct. 2006
47号, 16, 17, 01 Jul. 2006
46巻1号, 143, 156, 01 Jun. 2006
614号, 34, 39, 01 Jan. 2006
56巻10号, 47, 54, 01 Sep. 2005
43号, 60, 65, 01 Jul. 2005
77巻4号, 30, 34, 01 Apr. 2005
44巻1号, 30, 39, 01 Aug. 2004
1号, 60, 79, 01 Jul. 2004
39号, 152, 159, 01 Jul. 2004
75巻11号, 22, 28, 01 Oct. 2003
36号, 33, 38, 01 Oct. 2003
2巻2号, 24, 29, 01 Dec. 2002
601, 625, 01 Dec. 2001
33号, 1, 16, 01 Sep. 2001
559号, 40, 41, 01 Jul. 2001
27号, 44, 49, 01 Jul. 2001
32号, 39, 69, 01 Mar. 2001
47号、49号~54号, 01 Nov. 2000
31号, 89, 114, 01 Sep. 2000
551号, 01 Jul. 2000
72巻4号, 58, 65, 01 Apr. 2000
123巻1号, 208, 223, 01 Mar. 2000
11号, 100, 104, 01 Jul. 1997
Misc
Statement Analysis as “Evidence” in Trials, Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology, 24巻, 1号, 55, 61, 20 Oct. 2024
Statement Analysis as “Evidence” in Trials, Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology, 24巻, 1号, 55, 61,・・・
Statement Analysis as “Evidence” in Trials, Japanese Journal of Law and Psychology, 24巻, 1号, 55, 61, 20 Oct. 2024
521, 2, 3, 01 Feb. 2024
23巻, 1号, 41, 47, 30 Oct. 2023
33号, 201, 204, 25 Oct. 2023
54, 196, 200, 30 Sep. 2023
22巻, 1号, 50, 56, 30 Nov. 2022
106号, 99, 104, 20 Apr. 2021
104号, 152, 153, 20 Oct. 2020
467号, 4, 6, 01 Aug. 2019
99号, 76, 80, 20 Jul. 2019
20 Oct. 2017
89巻5号, 01 May 2017
232号, 200, 201, 30 Apr. 2017
18号, 25 Apr. 2016
25 Apr. 2016
25 Sep. 2015
81号, 20 Jan. 2015
712号, 12 Apr. 2014
71号, 10 Jul. 2012
185, 188, 25 Oct. 2011
17 May 2011
209, 212, 25 Apr. 2011
203号, 154, 155, 30 Mar. 2011
01 Jul. 2010
59号, 01 Jul. 2009
59号, 01 Jul. 2009
603号, 124, 01 Mar. 2005
600号, 120, 01 Dec. 2004
597号, 116, 01 Sep. 2004
594号, 119, 01 Jun. 2004
591号, 121, 01 Mar. 2004
588号, 123, 01 Dec. 2003
36号, 231, 01 Oct. 2003
585号, 117, 01 Sep. 2003
582号, 119, 01 Jun. 2003
579号, 110, 01 Mar. 2003
576号, 120, 01 Dec. 2002
537号, 108, 01 Sep. 2002
570号, 112, 01 Jun. 2002
23号, 188, 01 Jul. 2000
01 Jan. 1999, 監訳:福井厚
94巻4号, 119, 209, 01 Jan. 1997
93巻3号, 115, 263, 01 Jan. 1996
著書等出版物
10 Apr. 2023
15 Jun. 2021
15 Apr. 2018
01 Nov. 2015
20 Nov. 2014
28 Dec. 2012
20 Mar. 2012, 葛野尋之、斎藤司
15 Apr. 2011, 赤池一将、玄守道、斎藤司
15 Sep. 2010
01 Nov. 2009
01 Sep. 2009
01 Apr. 2009
01 Dec. 2008
01 Jan. 2007
01 Mar. 2006
01 Dec. 2005
01 Dec. 2005
01 Oct. 2005
01 Apr. 2005
01 Mar. 2005
01 Oct. 2004
01 Jul. 2003
01 Feb. 2003
01 Oct. 2002
01 Feb. 2001
講演・発表
26 Oct. 2024
26 Dec. 2023
22 Oct. 2023
21 Oct. 2023
05 Aug. 2023
09 Jul. 2023
23 Oct. 2022
22 May 2022
18 Dec. 2021
15 Dec. 2021
23 Oct. 2021
10 Jul. 2021
01 Jul. 2018
14 Oct. 2017
26 Apr. 2015
28 May 2006
15 Oct. 2005
24 Jul. 2005
17 Oct. 2004
25 Jul. 2004
26 Jan. 2003
21 Oct. 2001
20 Oct. 2001
05 Nov. 2000
その他
11号, 01 Jul. 1997, 104
165号『法学入門2000』, 01 Apr. 2000, 51, 53
39巻3号, 01 Apr. 2000, 144, 149
25号, 01 Jan. 2001, 8, 9
28号, 01 Mar. 2007, 110, 113
77巻11号, 01 Oct. 2005, 4, 23
79巻12号, 01 Nov. 2007, 6, 31
65号, 10 Jan. 2011
50巻3号, 10 Mar. 2011
01 Jun. 2012
52巻3号, 01 May 2013
50巻4号, 10 Mar. 2013, 田口真義、川田宏一、名倉俊一、宮村啓太、竹田昌弘
90号, 20 Apr. 2017
競争的資金
24K04595, 2024
17H02464, Study for improvement of the criminal retrial procedure, Results of this Research can be summed up in the next three points. (1)Interviews with lawyers' groups of the 19 retrial cases in recent years to concrete issues of the criminal review system. (2)Theoretical studies on themes of the principle and structure of the criminal review system, the right to counsel for a person who has been finally convicted and requests for the retrial, the reviewing object of the request hearing for a retrial, hearing methods of the clearness requirement of new evidence, relations of the illegal investigation and retrial grounds etc. (3)Comparative studies on the remedy systems for a wrongly convicted in foreign countries, as for the procedural guarantees in capital cases of the US, the special remedy system in England, the criminal retrial system in Germany and movements to review convictions on the Shaken-Syndrome-Baby theory in several foreign countries.
17H02464, Study for improvement of the criminal retrial procedure, Results of this Research can be s・・・
17H02464, Study for improvement of the criminal retrial procedure, Results of this Research can be summed up in the next three points. (1)Interviews with lawyers' groups of the 19 retrial cases in recent years to concrete issues of the criminal review system. (2)Theoretical studies on themes of the principle and structure of the criminal review system, the right to counsel for a person who has been finally convicted and requests for the retrial, the reviewing object of the request hearing for a retrial, hearing methods of the clearness requirement of new evidence, relations of the illegal investigation and retrial grounds etc. (3)Comparative studies on the remedy systems for a wrongly convicted in foreign countries, as for the procedural guarantees in capital cases of the US, the special remedy system in England, the criminal retrial system in Germany and movements to review convictions on the Shaken-Syndrome-Baby theory in several foreign countries.
22330024, Empirical Study of Lay-Judge (Saiban-in) Trial of Juvenile Cases, In Lay-Judge (Saiban-in) trial of juvenile cases, adequate hearings which considers unique characteristics of juvenile cases and appropriate decisions of juveniles’ treatment as results are required. At the same time, in Lay-Judge trials, meaningful participation of citizens are also required in order that more appropriate decisions can be made. But fundamental changes are needed both in substantive law and in the procedure of juvenile cases in order to meet these two requirements.
22330024, Empirical Study of Lay-Judge (Saiban-in) Trial of Juvenile Cases, In Lay-Judge (Saiban-in)・・・
22330024, Empirical Study of Lay-Judge (Saiban-in) Trial of Juvenile Cases, In Lay-Judge (Saiban-in) trial of juvenile cases, adequate hearings which considers unique characteristics of juvenile cases and appropriate decisions of juveniles’ treatment as results are required. At the same time, in Lay-Judge trials, meaningful participation of citizens are also required in order that more appropriate decisions can be made. But fundamental changes are needed both in substantive law and in the procedure of juvenile cases in order to meet these two requirements.
21330017, Reform of pre-sentence detention in the era of Saiban-in trial, Among the fruits of our 3 years long study "Miketukoukin to Jinken"(of Mr. KUZUNO Hiroyuki) has been already published as apart the fruits, which are related with criminal procedure.(See also the following spaceof the fruits of our collaborate researchers.) In this year of 2012 "Commentary on thelaw of prisoners"(of Keijirippou-Kenkyukai) will be published as a part of thefruits, which are related with treatment of pre-traial detainees.(See also the followingspace of the fruits of our collaborate researchers.)
21330017, Reform of pre-sentence detention in the era of Saiban-in trial, Among the fruits of our 3 ・・・
21330017, Reform of pre-sentence detention in the era of Saiban-in trial, Among the fruits of our 3 years long study "Miketukoukin to Jinken"(of Mr. KUZUNO Hiroyuki) has been already published as apart the fruits, which are related with criminal procedure.(See also the following spaceof the fruits of our collaborate researchers.) In this year of 2012 "Commentary on thelaw of prisoners"(of Keijirippou-Kenkyukai) will be published as a part of thefruits, which are related with treatment of pre-traial detainees.(See also the followingspace of the fruits of our collaborate researchers.)
18330014, A comprehensive study of pre-sentence detention-a comparative analysis
14320021, Role of Prosecutor in Juvenile Justice, Japanese Juvenile Law was revised in 2000 by which public prosecutors were allowed by Family Court to participate in juvenile court hearing. Main purpose of our research is to find the role of prosecutor in juvenile justice. Before the revision, they could not attend the hearing at all. There have been hot arguments pro or con on the revision. Some have been afraid of the juvenile hearing coming close to criminal court trial. Some others argued the adversary system may be better than non-adversary system for appropriate fact-finding. After the new law was put in effect, we need to conduct research about the actual role of the prosecutors in Japanese juvenile justice on evidence. First, we had interviewed with about 10 legal professions who actually experienced the juvenile hearing cases in which a public prosecutor participated. They were mostly private attorneys, a few judges, juvenile court probation officers. Our research found the fact that the role of prosecutors was different, depending upon the discretion of the court judges. In majority cases, the prosecutor was not a "party" like in criminal court trial and played the role of supporting juvenile court judges in order to reach appropriate fact findings. However, when the juvenile denied the fact for which one was referred to the Family Court, judges preferred neutral position to ones in non-adversary system and asked the public prosecutor to work like in adversary system. Second, we conducted research in the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany with regard to the role of public prosecutors in juvenile justice. We interviewed public prosecutors, juvenile court judges and private attorneys and some scholars. We also observed the hearings and trials, and visited institutions in these countries. We found the fact that the role of public prosecutors in juvenile justice strongly influenced by the role of public prosecutors in criminal justice. Therefore, in the United State and United Kingdom, they usually work as a party. In contrary, in German and French juvenile justices they did not play "aggressive role" as a party. However, public prosecutors in these countries acknowledged the differences between juvenile cases and adult cases. They said they also want to help the juveniles to become constructive, rehabilitate and to be reintegrated in society.
14320021, Role of Prosecutor in Juvenile Justice, Japanese Juvenile Law was revised in 2000 by which・・・
14320021, Role of Prosecutor in Juvenile Justice, Japanese Juvenile Law was revised in 2000 by which public prosecutors were allowed by Family Court to participate in juvenile court hearing. Main purpose of our research is to find the role of prosecutor in juvenile justice. Before the revision, they could not attend the hearing at all. There have been hot arguments pro or con on the revision. Some have been afraid of the juvenile hearing coming close to criminal court trial. Some others argued the adversary system may be better than non-adversary system for appropriate fact-finding. After the new law was put in effect, we need to conduct research about the actual role of the prosecutors in Japanese juvenile justice on evidence. First, we had interviewed with about 10 legal professions who actually experienced the juvenile hearing cases in which a public prosecutor participated. They were mostly private attorneys, a few judges, juvenile court probation officers. Our research found the fact that the role of prosecutors was different, depending upon the discretion of the court judges. In majority cases, the prosecutor was not a "party" like in criminal court trial and played the role of supporting juvenile court judges in order to reach appropriate fact findings. However, when the juvenile denied the fact for which one was referred to the Family Court, judges preferred neutral position to ones in non-adversary system and asked the public prosecutor to work like in adversary system. Second, we conducted research in the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany with regard to the role of public prosecutors in juvenile justice. We interviewed public prosecutors, juvenile court judges and private attorneys and some scholars. We also observed the hearings and trials, and visited institutions in these countries. We found the fact that the role of public prosecutors in juvenile justice strongly influenced by the role of public prosecutors in criminal justice. Therefore, in the United State and United Kingdom, they usually work as a party. In contrary, in German and French juvenile justices they did not play "aggressive role" as a party. However, public prosecutors in these countries acknowledged the differences between juvenile cases and adult cases. They said they also want to help the juveniles to become constructive, rehabilitate and to be reintegrated in society.