Linking substantive criminal law and procedural notions offers an interesting, and yet mostly unexplored, point of view. It can be argued that the idea according to which criminal procedure is a mere tool to enforce substantive criminal law must be revisited. There are good reasons to claim that the evolution of the general theory of crime has been driven, relevantly or exclusively, by the need to facilitate the reach of a certain evidentiary standard in practice. The subsequent changes of criminal law notions like dolus, offender, limits in the omission, causation crisis and development of objective imputation, as well as other concepts, produced the (unlikely casual) consequence a facilitation in the trial fact finding. If the above is correct, then an interesting debate on the ethical foundation of such evolution can be started.
Common sense plays a pervasive role when we judge other's behaviours and purposes. As argued by psychological literature, our understanding of the surrounding environment is deeply influenced by several postulates on "how the world works". Jurisprudence has embraced this point of view and frequently uses these postulates in its reasonings. But what if Common Sense was fallacious? This paper analyses the downfall fallacious Common Sense statement have on the genesis and perpetuation of false confessions through the analysis of three of them: people do not lie against their interest; humans are good lie detector and this ability can be trained; healthy individuals do not generate false memories. By debunking these myths the aim is to expose the frailty of judicial reasoning when it comes to confessions. The last part of the paper analyses the case of "il Canaro della Magliana" exposing the fallacies in the genesis and evaluation of the alleged perpetrator’s confession
The paper examines various issues related to proceedings aiming at applying administrative sanctions under Chilean law: whether, and to which extent, the fair trial guarantees in their “criminal limb” should apply to these proceeding; which should be the standard of proof required in these proceedings; and which judicial remedies should be provided against a final decision imposing an administrative sanction.
The paper analyses the Chilean criminal procedure rules according to which the statements rendered by people charged in administrative proceedings (as well as in other kind of proceedings where the privilege against selfincrimination and the right to remain silent do not apply) can be admitted as evidence in criminal trials.