Advertisement

Traditional Values of Criminal Procedure in Terms of IT Development

  • Sergey V. ZuevEmail author
Chapter
  • 34 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 826)

Abstract

This chapter is devoted to the study of the main lines of IT development in criminal procedure. The purpose of the study is to reveal possible threats to traditional values, as well as to show to what extent information technologies can change the current system of the criminal proceeding. The chapter applies a method of system and complex analysis as well as comparative-law one.

Keywords

Information technology Digital evidence Criminal procedure Information Development 

JEL Classification

K 490 

References

  1. 1.
    Kerr, O. (2005). Digital evidence and the new criminal procedure. Columbia Law Review, 105(1), 279–318.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Momsen, C. (2013). Digital Beweismittel im Strafprozess. URL: https://www.strafverteidigervereinigungen.org/Material/Themen/Technik%20&%20Ueberwachung/37_momsen.html. Accessed date: 16 July, 2018.
  3. 3.
    McKechnie, D. (2003). The use of the internet by courts and the judiciary: Findings from a study trip and supplementary research. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 11(2), 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazell, L. (2018). Electronic signatures and identities: law and regulation. Sweet & Maxwell. URL: http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?productid=730207&recordid=7564.
  5. 5.
    Shah, M.S.M.B., Saleem, Sh., & Zulqarnain, R. (2017). Protecting digital evidence integrity and preserving chain of custody. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 12(2), Article 12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, R. (2010). Why the plain view should not apple to digital evidence? Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy, 12, 31–67.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sinn, A. (2013). Cybercrime im Rechtsvergleich: Beiträge zum deutsch-japanisch-koreanischen Strafrechtssymposium. Osnabruck.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Micheal, K. Y. (2018). Digital privacy and virtues of multilateral digital constitutionalism–preliminary thoughts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 25(2), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sullivan, C. (2012). Digital identity and mistake. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 20(3), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E-justice—Electronic proceedings, study on mutual recognition of e-signatures: Update of country profiles. Belgian country profile. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc3443.pdf?id=32321.
  11. 11.
    Reed, C., Sathyanarayan, U., Ruan, S., & Collins, J. (2018). Beyond BitCoin—Legal impurities and off-chain assets. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(2), 160–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuccuru, P. (2017). Beyond bitcoin: An early overview on smart contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 25(3), 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brownsword, R. (2016). Logical management and the rule of law. Law, Innovation and Technology, 8, 100–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Narayanan, A., & Bennun, M. (1998). Law, computer science, and artificial intelligence. Intellect Books. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Potas, I., Ash, D., Sagi, M., Cumines, S., & Marsic, N. (1998). Informing the discretion: The sentencing information system of the judicial commission of New South Wales. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 6(2), 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoeren, T. (2017). Big data and the legal framework for data quality. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 25(1), 26–37.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ulasovich, K. (2018). Avatar interviewed witnesses more efficiently than a real person. URL: https://nplus1.ru/news/2018/05/16/avatar-police.
  18. 18.
    Doldi, M. (2018). The responsible use of technological power. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 15. URL: http://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/4889/4840.
  19. 19.
    Martino, A. (1994). Artificial intelligence and law. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2(2), 154–193.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weitzenboeck, E. (2001). Electronic agents and the formation of contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 9(3), 204–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Parliament Resolution dated February 16, 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, 2015/2103(INL). In: European Parliament. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2017-0051+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
  22. 22.
    Krausová, A. (2017). Intersections between law and artificial intelligence. International Journal of Computer, 27(1), 55–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Ural State University (National Research University)ChelyabinskRussia

Personalised recommendations