The application and cognition on Defer-Prosecution process— A Study in Public Welfare Organizations and the Prosecutors
| Autor: | Kuo Jen-Wei, 郭人瑋 |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2009 |
| Druh dokumentu: | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Popis: | 97 The application and cognition on Defer-Prosecution process — A Study in Public Welfare Organizations and the Prosecutors by Kuo, Jen-Wei January 2009 ADVISOR(S)： Dr. Huang, Frank Fu-Yuan DEPARTMENT： GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY MAJOR： CRIMINOLOGY DEGREE： MASTER OF LAW The study is to realize the perception of prosecutors and public welfare groups toward the defer-prosecution process and their different perspectives of application process and performance of its action fine by questionnaire that the subjects include all prosecutors in every district prosecutors office and 250 public welfare groups with available contact that have passed the examination of above investigation groups of suit delay fine at prosecutors office, as the survey was conducted by post. The questionnaire content was devided into four aspects: perception of defer-prosecution process theory, application process and performance of its disciplinary action fine, in hopes of exploring the different views toward the whole system between the two parties on the basis of the responses from practical workers, and making suggestions for improvement. Our findings of the study show as follows: 1. As prosecutors generally do not get involved in the application and/or examination of the disciplinary action fine of defer-prosecution process, public welfare groups have more understanding toward this aspect than prosecutors. 2. Being public welfare groups to practically use the action fine of defer-prosecution process, they have more understanding toward this aspect than prosecutors; however, prosecutors have more understanding toward the performance of criminal policy and way of supervision than public welfare groups. 3. District prosecutors offices strictly examine the suitability of target payees in order to control the appointed target as well as the amount, and it was approved by the public welfare groups too. 4. Although both two parties assumed that the delivery of action fine had the fact of centralization and/or preference to some specific groups, they did not think it violated the principle of fairness. 5. Both two parties did not agree to make it open to individuals as payees. 6. Both two parties believe even though the action fine had become part of steady financial resources of public welfare groups, it would not weaken NGO’s ability of raising money. The study is only to make suggestions to procuratorial organ and public welfare groups, and providing the superior organs references of establishing relevant laws and regulations of the defer-prosecution process of action fine with fairness and public welfare, based on the outcome of the investigation. Key words: defer-prosecution process, disciplinary action fine |
| Databáze: | Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations |
| Externí odkaz: |
|