DOCSLIB.ORG

Presumption of Guilt the Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention Presumption of Guilt: the Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention Copyright © 2014 Open Society Foundations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presumption of Guilt the Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention Presumption of Guilt: the Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention Copyright © 2014 Open Society Foundations Presumption of Guilt The Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention Presumption of Guilt: The Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention Copyright © 2014 Open Society Foundations. This publication is available as a pdf on the Open Society Foundations website under a Creative Commons license that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society Foundations and used for noncommercial educational or public policy purposes. Photographs may not be used separately from the publication. ISBN: 978-1-936133-84-0 PUBLISHED BY: Open Society Foundations 224 West 57th Street New York, New York 10019 USA www.OpenSocietyFoundations.org FOR MORE INFORMation contact: Martin Schönteich Senior Legal Officer Criminal Justice Program [email protected] Design and layout by John Emerson, backspace.com and Heather Van De Mark, heathervandemark.com Printed by GHP Media, Inc. Cover photo © Benedicte Kurzen/NOOR for the Open Society Foundations Table of Contents Acknowledgments i Executive Summary & Recommendations 1 Introduction 7 The Scope of Pretrial Detention Around the World: Its Extent and Cost 11 Introduction 11 The Extent of Pretrial Detention 15 The Cost of Pretrial Detention 28 Conclusion 31 Who Are the World’s Pretrial Detainees? 33 Introduction 33 The Poor 33 Marginalized Minorities and Non-Citizens 49 The Mentally Ill and Intellectually Disabled 51 Low-Risk Defendants, Persons Accused of Minor Offenses, and the Innocent 53 Conclusion 55 Circumstances of Detention and Impact on Detainees and their Communities 57 Introduction 57 Worse off than Convicted Prisoners 57 Circumstances of Detention 61 Health Consequences of Detention for Detainees and their Communities 76 Economic Impact on Detainees and their Families 81 Criminogenic Impact of Detention 91 Conclusion 93 The Causes of Arbitrary and Excessive Use of Pretrial Detention 95 Introduction 95 The Presumption of Innocence: An Elusive Aspiration 96 Imprecise Laws Lead to Arbitrary Application 98 Restrictive Laws Promote Pretrial Detention 100 Flouting Limits on Detention 101 Public Pressure and Populist Policy Responses 101 Dearth of Political Will 103 Police and Prosecutorial Influence 104 Corruption 106 Procedural Factors 108 Lack of Coordination between Criminal Justice Agencies 109 The Role of Limited Resources 111 Inadequate Legal Representation and Assistance 113 Conclusion 115 The Implications for the Rule of Law 117 Introduction 117 Arbitrary Arrest and Detention 118 Restricted Access to Legal Counsel 121 Duration of Detention 123 Lack of Redress and Accountability 125 Mass Releases Due to Overcrowding 126 Impact on Public Confidence 127 Conclusion 129 Reducing the Arbitrary and Excessive Use of Pretrial Detention 130 Introduction 130 Political Conditions that Support Pretrial Detention Reform 130 Laws and Policies to Reduce Pretrial Detention 133 The Role of Data in Assessing the Problem 137 Coordination between Criminal Justice Agencies 140 Reducing the Number of People Who Come into Conflict with the Law 142 The Role of Lawyers and Paralegals 148 Government Programs that Reduce Pretrial Detention 159 Conclusion 172 Conclusion 174 Appendix: International and Regional Standards, Norms, and Jurisprudence 175 Bibliography 182 Endnotes 203 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was written by Martin Schönteich, senior legal officer for the Open Society Justice Initiative’s Criminal Justice program. Chapter Five, Implications for the Rule of Law, was contributed by Robert O. Varenik, program director for the Justice Initiative. The book was edited by David Berry, with the assistance of Kate Epstein. The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable contributions of many Open Society Foundations colleagues, including Denise Tomasini-Joshi, Ina Zoon, Jonathan Birchall, Kersty McCourt, Madeleine Crohn, Robert O. Varenik, Stanley Ibe, Edit Turcsan Bain, Marina Ilminska, Borislav Petranov, Louise Ehlers, and Mary Miller Flowers. Invaluable research was provided by Anna Husarska, Alina Finkelshteyn, Ari Brochin, Elena Kravtsoff, Steven Primeaux, and Iya Megre. Special thanks are due to the Open Society Foundations Human Rights Initiative for provid- ing support for the research and publication of this report. The Open Society Justice Initiative bears sole responsibility for any errors. 1 Executive Summary & Recommendations The arbitrary and excessive use of pretrial detention around the world is a massive form of human rights abuse that affects in excess of 14 million people a year. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is well established. Yet this right is violated widely and often—in the developed and developing world alike—and the violation goes largely unnoticed. Few rights are so broadly accepted in theory, but so commonly abused in practice. It is fair to say that the global overuse of pretrial detention is one of the most overlooked human rights crises of our time. Given that the presumption of innocence is universal, detaining arrestees pending trial should be rare. However, many jurisdictions around the world vio- late the principle that pretrial detention should be used sparingly, as a last resort. Instead, it has become the default setting of criminal justice systems. One out of three people behind bars has not been found guilty of a crime. In some parts of the globe, pretrial detainees outnumber convicted prisoners. At this moment, 3.3 million people are in pretrial detention worldwide. And that is a conser- vative estimate, because official data ignore the tens of thousands of people detained in police stations. Cutting the number of pretrial detainees could resolve prison overcrowding, limit the spread of disease, reduce poverty, and spur development. During the course of an average year, approximately 15 million people are admitted into pretrial detention. Some of them are detained for a few days or weeks, but many will spend months and even years waiting for their day in court. Council of Europe countries have some of the most developed criminal justice systems in the world, yet their average period of pretrial detention is almost half a year. The present global cohort of 3.3 million pretrial detainees will collectively spend an estimated 660 million days in detention—a terrible waste of human potential that comes at a considerable cost to states, taxpayers, families, and communities. Most pretrial detainees are poor, and economically and politically marginal- ized. The poor and powerless lack the money to hire a lawyer, procure bail (or bond), or pay a bribe—all tools to secure pretrial release in many jurisdictions. Poor and marginalized people also lack the social and political connections and influence that can facilitate pretrial release in many places. Ethnic and religious minorities and foreigners are significantly overrep- resented in pretrial detention systems. Dalits in South Asia, indigenous people in Australia and Canada, and ethnic minorities in Israel and the United States are grossly overrepresented in pretrial detention. Mentally ill and intellectually chal- lenged persons also face disproportionate risk of being held in pretrial detention. Many pretrial detainees will eventually be released without trial, or tried and acquitted. Many others will be found guilty but ultimately receive a non-custodial sentence for a minor offense, or be sentenced to less time than they have already ExEcutivE Summary 2 served. In England and Wales—a jurisdiction that uses pretrial detention relatively sparingly—over half of all pretrial detainees ultimately are acquitted or receive a non-custodial sentence. Among juvenile pretrial detainees the proportion receiving a non-custodial sentence or an acquittal is even higher. In Bolivia and Liberia, where between 80 and 90 percent of all prisoners are pretrial detainees, few detainees will ever be convicted of a crime that carries a prison sentence. There are situations under which pretrial detention is warranted. When there is good reason to think an arrestee—if released—will commit a crime, threat- en a witness, or abscond, he should be held pending trial. But these conditions do not apply to most pretrial detainees. The vast majority of pretrial detainees pose no threat to society and can be safely released pending trial. Simply put, they should not be in pretrial detention. It is a cruel irony that many jurisdictions treat pretrial detainees worse than they treat convicted prisoners. Pretrial detainees are often held in police lockups— facilities not designed for long-term occupancy, where conditions can be particularly crowded and harsh—for extended periods of time. Prison systems treat pretrial detainees as temporary and incidental and therefore devote fewer resources to them. Compared to sentenced prisoners, pretrial detainees have less access to food, beds, health care, and exercise. While convicted prisoners are often segregated into low-, medium-, and high-security facilities, a pretrial detainee charged with minor theft will be confined in the same facilities as someone charged with a serious violent crime. Pretrial detainees are at greater risk of not being separated according to age and gender. Many jurisdictions confine juvenile pretrial detainees with adults, especially in police lockups, and in some places women are confined with men. Especially in resource-poor countries, pretrial detainees are likely to be confined with convicted prisoners. This exposes pretrial detainees to a hardened offender subculture, where violence,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • N.2 Definition of Conviction April 2019
    Immigrant Legal Resource Center, www.ilrc.org § N.2 Definition of Conviction April 2019 § N.2 Definition of Conviction Table of Contents I. Definition of Conviction; Limited Effect of Rehabilitative Relief II. When Rehabilitative Relief Works: DACA and Lujan-Armendariz III. Not a Conviction: Pretrial Diversion under Cal Pen C § 1000 (2018) IV. Former California DEJ and Pen C § 1203.43 V. Not a Conviction: Juvenile Delinquency DisPositions VI. Not a Conviction: California Infractions? VII. Not a Conviction: Direct APPeal of Right? VIII. Not a Conviction: Vacation of Judgment for Cause IX. Convictions: Court Martial; Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity How to Avoid or Eliminate a “Conviction” for Immigration PurPoses Most (although not all) immigration consequences relating to crimes require a conviction, as defined by federal immigration law, not state law. If your noncitizen client does not have a conviction for immigration purposes, their immigration case might be saved. This section discusses which dispositions in California criminal courts amount to a conviction for immigration purposes, and how to avoid or eliminate a conviction. Warning: Immigration Consequences Even Without a Conviction. Some immigration penalties are triggered by evidence of conduct or findings, even absent a conviction. A noncitizen might be found inadmissible if immigration authorities have evidence that the person engaged in prostitution1 or ever participated in drug trafficking or money laundering.2 The person might be inadmissible or deportable if they are or were a drug addict or abuser.3 Even a civil finding that a noncitizen violated a domestic violence stay-away order, in any way, makes the person deportable.4 In those situations, avoiding a conviction is a good step, but will not necessarily protect the person.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S
    MEDWED_TRANSMITTED.DOC2 2/26/2008 1:51 PM The Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S. Medwed∗ INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 493 I. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PAROLE ................................................ 497 A. HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND PURPOSES OF PAROLE ................................ 497 B. PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING: CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS AND POLICIES .................................................................................... 504 II. THE EFFECT OF PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING NORMS ON THE INNOCENT ............................................................................................... 513 A. PAROLE: AN INNOCENCE OPTION OF LAST RESORT ............................. 518 B. PRESSURE ON INNOCENT INMATES TO “ADMIT” GUILT ........................ 523 III. ADMISSIONS OF GUILT AND THE PAROLE RELEASE DECISION RECONSIDERED ....................................................................................... 529 A. THE DANGER OF ASSUMING THE LITIGATION PROCESS ACCURATELY FILTERS THE GUILTY FROM THE INNOCENT ......................................... 530 B. POTHOLES ON THE PATH TO REDEMPTION THROUGH THE PAROLE PROCESS ........................................................................................... 532 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM .................................................................... 541 A. LIMITATIONS ON THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF STATEMENTS FROM PAROLE HEARINGS ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Presumption of Innocence As a Counterfactual Principle Ferry De Jong & Leonie Van Lent*
    This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review The Presumption of Innocence as a Counterfactual Principle Ferry de Jong & Leonie van Lent* 1. Introduction The presumption of innocence is widely, if not universally, recognized as one of the central principles of criminal justice, which is evidenced by its position in all international and regional human rights treaties as a standard of fair proceedings.1 Notwithstanding this seemingly firm normative position, there are strong indications that the presumption of innocence is in jeopardy on a practical as well as on a normative level. The presumption of innocence has always been much discussed, but in the last decade the topic has generated a particularly significant extent of academic work, both at the national and at the international level.2 The purport of the literature on this topic is twofold: many authors discuss developments in law and in the practice of criminal justice that curtail suspects’ rights and freedoms, and criticize these developments as being violations of the presumption of innocence. Several other authors search for the principle’s normative meaning and implications, some of whom take a critical stance on narrow interpretations of the principle, whereas others assert – by sometimes totally differing arguments – that the presumption of innocence has and should have a more limited normative meaning and scope than is generally attributed to it. An important argument for narrowing down the principle’s meaning or scope of application is the risk involved in a broad conception and a consequently broad field of applicability, viz. that its specific normative value becomes overshadowed and that concrete protection is hampered instead of furthered.3 The ever-increasing international interest in the topic is reflected also in the regulatory interest in the topic on the EU level.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Chart by State
    Updated 5/21/18 NQ COMPENSATION STATUTES: A NATIONAL OVERVIEW STATE STATUTE WHEN ELIGIBILITY STANDARD WHO TIME LIMITS MAXIMUM AWARDS OTHER FUTURE CONTRIBUTORY PASSED OF PROOF DECIDES FOR FILING AWARDS CIVIL PROVISIONS LITIGATION AL Ala.Code 1975 § 29-2- 2001 Conviction vacated Not specified State Division of 2 years after Minimum of $50,000 for Not specified Not specified A new felony 150, et seq. or reversed and the Risk Management exoneration or each year of incarceration, conviction will end a charges dismissed and the dismissal Committee on claimant’s right to on grounds Committee on Compensation for compensation consistent with Compensation Wrongful Incarceration can innocence for Wrongful recommend discretionary Incarceration amount in addition to base, but legislature must appropriate any funds CA Cal Penal Code §§ Amended 2000; Pardon for Not specified California Victim 2 years after $140 per day of The Department Not specified Requires the board to 4900 to 4906; § 2006; 2009; innocence or being Compensation judgment of incarceration of Corrections deny a claim if the 2013; 2015; “innocent”; and Government acquittal or and Rehabilitation board finds by a 2017 declaration of Claims Board discharge given, shall assist a preponderance of the factual innocence makes a or after pardon person who is evidence that a claimant recommendation granted, after exonerated as to a pled guilty with the to the legislature release from conviction for specific intent to imprisonment, which he or she is protect another from from release serving a state prosecution for the from custody prison sentence at underlying conviction the time of for which the claimant exoneration with is seeking transitional compensation.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Life Without Parole
    POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview The momentum to protect youth rights in the criminal legal system is clear. Twenty- five states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without the possibility of parole for people under 18; in nine additional states, no one is serving life without parole for offenses committed before age 18. The Sentencing Project, in its national survey of life and from life without parole sentences, regardless of the virtual life sentences in the United States found 1,465 crime of conviction. Life without parole, as a mandatory people serving JLWOP sentences at the start of 2020. minimum sentence for anyone under age 18 was found This number reflects a 38% drop in the population of unconstitutional. Montgomery, in 2016, clarified that people serving JLWOP since our 2016 count and a 44% Miller applied retroactively. Jones reaffirmed both drop since the peak count of JLWOP figures in 2012.1 Montgomery and Miller but held that a specific factual This count continues to decline as more states eliminate finding of “permanent incorrigibility” at the time of JLWOP. sentencing is not required for the imposition of a juvenile life without parole sentence. In five decisions – Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), Miller v. Alabama (2012), Montgomery Henceforth, few youth will be sentenced to life without v. Louisiana (2016), and Jones v. Mississippi (2021) – the possibility of parole. Moreover, youth sentenced to the Supreme Court of the United States establishes parole-ineligible life sentences in 28 states where the and upholds the fact that “children are constitutionally sentence was mandatory and the federal government different from adults in their levels of culpability”2 when are in the process of having their original sentences it comes to sentencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: a Wrong Approach Henry Weihofen
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 30 Article 8 Issue 4 November-December Winter 1939 Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: A Wrong Approach Henry Weihofen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Henry Weihofen, Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: A Wrong Approach, 30 Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 534 (1939-1940) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CONSOLIDATION OF PARDON AND PAROLE: A WRONG APPROACH HENRY WEMOFEN* There is a growing tendency throughout the United States to consolidate pardon with parole administration, and even with pro- bation. This movement seems to have met with almost unanimous approval; at least it has no opposition. It is the purpose of this paper to remedy that lack and furnish the spice of opposition. The argument for such consolidation-is that pardon and parole perform very largely the same function. A conditional pardon, particularly, is practically indistinguishable from a parole. But the governor, granting a conditional pardon, usually has no officers available to see that the conditions are complied with. Why not-, it is argued-assign this duty to parole officers? Moreover, it is felt to be illogical to have two forms of release so similar as parole and conditional pardon issuing from two different sources, one from the parole board and the other from the governor's office.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and Welcome to the Death
    Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and welcome to the Death Penalty Information Center’s podcast exploring issues related to capital punishment. In this edition, we will discuss the legal process in death penalty trials and appeals. How is a death penalty trial different from other trials? There are several differences between death penalty trials and traditional criminal proceedings. In most criminal cases, there is a single trial in which the jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the judge then determines the sentence. However, death penalty cases are divided into two separate trials. In the first trial, juries weigh the evidence of the crime to determine guilt or innocence. If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, there is a second trial to determine the sentence. At the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors usually have only two options: life in prison without the possibility of parole, or a death sentence. During this sentencing trial, juries are asked to weigh aggravating factors presented by the prosecution against mitigating factors presented by the defense. How is a jury chosen for a death penalty trial? Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. The legal counsel for both the prosecution and defense have an opportunity to submit questions to determine any possible bias in the case. However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Last-In-Time Marriage Presumption Peter N
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1995 The Last-in-Time Marriage Presumption Peter N. Swisher University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter Nash Swisher, The Last-in-Time Marriage Presumption, 29 Fam. L.Q. 409 (1995). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Last-in-Time Marriage Presumption PETER NASH SWISHER* and MELANIE DIANA JONES** I. Introduction The typical scenario for the last-in-time marriage presumption is not as unusual as one might expect: A husband (or wife) has unexpectedly died, and the bereaved surviving spouse is in the process of bringing a legal proceed- ing that may include a probate action, a wrongful death action, a suit for social security benefits, a workers' compensation action, a life insurance action, or another legal action for related compensatory, probate, or insurance benefits. However, during the pendency of these actions a former wife comes forward, claiming that she has never been divorced from her deceased spouse and that she, rather than the subsequent wife, should recover in any legal proceeding as the legal wife. Which wife should prevail? To many, the initial conclusion might be that because American family law in the vast majority of states prohibits bigamy and other plural marriages,' the first-in-time spouse should recover all the proceeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Norges Skøyteforbund Årbok 2015–2017
    Norges Skøyteforbund Årbok 2015–2017 Versjon 2 – 30.05.2017 ©Norges Skøyteforbund 2017 Redaktør: Halvor Lauvstad Historikk/resultater: Svenn Erik Ødegård Trond Eng Bjørg Ellen Ringdal Tilrettelegging: Halvor Lauvstad Distribusjon: Elektronisk (PDF) Innholdsfortegnelse Norges Skøyteforbunds Årbok 2015-2017 2/150 Innkalling til ordinært ting for Norges Skøyteforbund Det innkalles herved til Forbundsting på Quality Hotel Edvard Grieg (Sandsliåsen 50, 5254 Bergen) på Sandsli like utenfor Bergen, 9. – 11. juni 2017. Tingforhandlingene starter fredag 9. juni kl. 16.30. Forslag og saker som ønskes behandlet på Skøytetinget 2017, må være begrunnet og innsendt gjennom et lag eller en krets til forbundsstyret innen 9 mai 2017. Minimumskrav for at for at saker/lovforslag skal bli behandlet ifb med NSFs Ting, er at innmeldte saker/forslag inneholder henvisninger til aktuelle lover/regler og konkrete forslag til endret tekst/ordlyd. NSFs lover er her: https://skoyte.klubb.nif.no/dokumentarkiv/Documents/NSF%20lov%20revidert%20NIFs%20lovnorm %20Mai%202017.pdf Forslag/saker sendes elektronisk til Norges Skøyteforbund på epost: [email protected] Skøytetinget 2017 avholdes i henhold til § 14, 15, 16, 17 og 18 i Norges Skøyteforbunds lov. Dagsorden 1. Tingets åpning a) Minnetaler b) Åpningstale c) Hilsningstaler 2. Konstituering a) Godkjenning av innkalling til Tinget b) Godkjenning av fullmaktene c) Godkjenning av dagsorden d) Godkjenning av forretningsorden e) Valg av: - 2 dirigenter - sekretærer - 2 tillitsvalgte til å undertegne protokollen - reisefordelingskomité - tellekorps - Valg av redaksjonskomite på 3 medlemmer 3. Beretninger 4. Regnskap Norges Skøyteforbunds Årbok 2015-2017 3/150 a) Regnskap for perioden 1.1.2015 til 31.12.2015 b) Regnskap for perioden 1.1.2016 til 31.12.2016 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders
    Introductory Handbook on The Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES Cover photo: © Rafael Olivares, Dirección General de Centros Penales de El Salvador. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2018 © United Nations, December 2018. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. Preface The first version of the Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders, published in 2012, was prepared for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by Vivienne Chin, Associate of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Canada, and Yvon Dandurand, crimi- nologist at the University of the Fraser Valley, Canada. The initial draft of the first version of the Handbook was reviewed and discussed during an expert group meeting held in Vienna on 16 and 17 November 2011.Valuable suggestions and contributions were made by the following experts at that meeting: Charles Robert Allen, Ibrahim Hasan Almarooqi, Sultan Mohamed Alniyadi, Tomris Atabay, Karin Bruckmüller, Elias Carranza, Elinor Wanyama Chemonges, Kimmett Edgar, Aida Escobar, Angela Evans, José Filho, Isabel Hight, Andrea King-Wessels, Rita Susana Maxera, Marina Menezes, Hugo Morales, Omar Nashabe, Michael Platzer, Roberto Santana, Guy Schmit, Victoria Sergeyeva, Zhang Xiaohua and Zhao Linna.
    [Show full text]
  • A Simple, Effective Will
    Pace Law School Continuing Legal Education Bridge the Gap: December 6-7, 2014 A SIMPLE, EFFECTIVE WILL Daniel Timins. Esq. [email protected] 450 7th Avenue, Suite 1500 New York, New York 10123 (212) 683-3560 Telephone Number www.timinslaw.com Daniel A. Timins, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel Timins FOREWORD It is sometimes mind-numbing to see the absurd depth that attorneys will sink to when drafting legal documents: Details, definition sections, contingency upon contingency upon contingency. Yet, in the end, the artful litigator will still find a sufficient number of loopholes and arguments in any document, no matter how solid the drafter intended it to be. The statement “simple is better” when it comes to legal documents may be true, and perhaps equally so when it comes to the central estate planning document: A Last Will and Testament. There are many two page “Sweetheart Wills” drafted by laymen which are admitted to Probate with little problem. On the reverse side, there are a near-unlimited number of Court proceedings based on multiple page Wills drafted by the most skilled attorneys that languish in the Surrogate’s Court for years. And, of course, the inverse is equally true for both parties. The “Plain English” trend in legal writing should be observed with modern Wills even more so than other legal documents: The Will should be drafted in a way that allows the client to understand what legal concepts are being conveyed. To do otherwise may have the negative effects of not fulfilling the Testator’s desires, and may open the Will up to the protracted legal intervention that the drafter was hoping so hard to avoid.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice in Jeopardy
    RWANDA JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY THE FIRST INSTANCE TRIAL OF VICTOIRE INGABIRE Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. First published in 2013 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom © Amnesty International 2013 Index: AFR 47/001/2013 English Original language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact [email protected] Cover photo: Victoire Ingabire at the High Court of Kigali, Rwanda, November 2011. © STEVE TERRILL/AFP/Getty Images amnesty.org CONTENTS 1. Acronyms.................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]