Prohibition to compell the Persons to give Evidence against Themselves as the Constitutional Guarantee in the Criminal Procedure
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The article deals with the aspects of prohibition to compell the persons to give testimonies against themselves and their family’s members or close relatives as the certain constitutional guarantee to the criminal procedure. For this reason the author of this article invokes foreign legal doctrine and judicial practice concerning this guarantee. Due to discover the content of this constitutional guarantee, the author of this article explains its historical assumptions, forms and scientific validity in the countries of common and continental law traditions. It is notable in the common law countries a person cannot be forced to incriminate himself without first receiving immunity from criminal prosecution as a result thereof.
The main goal of this article is to make the analysis of the problems of legal regulation and implementation of the prohibition to compell the persons to give evidence against themselves in Lithuanian criminal procedure. Thus, the author explains the peremptory nature of the witness’ immunity, that prohibits to compell a witness to give testimonies against himself or his/her family members and etc. That is why the author draws a conclusion that this peremptory witness’ immunity is not scientificly valid. The author supposes the witness’ immunity, that prohibits compelling the persons to give testimonies against themselves, shall be invoked by using the disposition method of legal regulation.
The end of the article frames the conclusions and suggestions, that are based on the scientific methods.
The main goal of this article is to make the analysis of the problems of legal regulation and implementation of the prohibition to compell the persons to give evidence against themselves in Lithuanian criminal procedure. Thus, the author explains the peremptory nature of the witness’ immunity, that prohibits to compell a witness to give testimonies against himself or his/her family members and etc. That is why the author draws a conclusion that this peremptory witness’ immunity is not scientificly valid. The author supposes the witness’ immunity, that prohibits compelling the persons to give testimonies against themselves, shall be invoked by using the disposition method of legal regulation.
The end of the article frames the conclusions and suggestions, that are based on the scientific methods.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
