Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKing, John D.
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-06T21:44:33Z
dc.date.available2020-07-06T21:44:33Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn0719-1669
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12536/701
dc.description.abstractThis paper examines the role of the right to counsel in criminal cases as a structural, theoretical, and actual guarantee of justice. It compares the scope and history of the right to counsel in the United States and Chilean systems and suggests that Chile could benefi t by adopting a more nuanced approach to its criminal adjudication system, retaining elements of inquisitorialism and rejecting extreme adversarialism for petty crimes. Unlike the United States, where potentially severe collateral consequences of even minor criminal convictions make necessary a broad right to counsel, the Chilean system could benefi t from focusing defense resources on more serious crimes. By restricting the scope of the right to counsel to more serious crimes, and by redesigning the system of adjudication and punishment for petty crimes, Chile could not only achieve substantial fi nancial savings but also avoid the problems of hyper-incarceration and punitivism that have come to characterize the criminal justice system in the United States.es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherEscuela de Derecho - Universidad Viña del Mares_ES
dc.sourceRevista de Derechos Fundamentaleses_ES
dc.subjectRight to counseles_ES
dc.subjectAdversarialismes_ES
dc.subjectInquisitorialismes_ES
dc.subjectCriminal procedure reformses_ES
dc.titleRecongnizing the limits of the right to counsel as a guarantee of justicees_ES
dc.typeArtículo de revistaes_ES
uvm.escuelaEscuela de Ciencias Jurídicas y Socialeses_ES
uvm.carreraDerechoes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Artículos científicos
    Colección que almacena artículos científicos de la Escuela de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales

Show simple item record