English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

When out of regulation of legal dogmatics, much reasoning trial for death penalty often encounters a lot of realistic difficulties, which only takes a great amount of judicial and social costs but also causes litigation-related complaints easily so as to affect comprehensive social governance. This paper finds that, by means of judicial case studies and public interviews on streets, all sectors of society have high expectations for elements and degrees of judgement reasoning on issues involving conviction or not and immediate execution of death penalty or not. Therefore, the paper argues that, in death penalty cases, it is necessary to intensify reasoning for conviction, no punishment in doubtful cases, the unknown body and tool for criminal purpose in homicide cases, unknown sources and whereabouts of drugs with consideration of special elements for conviction and sentencing. Keywords—Legal dogmatics; Referee documents; Reasoning elements; Death penalty cases

Special Elements for Death Penalty Judgement Reasoning from the Perspective of Legal Dogmatics