Unauthorized Criminal Law: The Legality Principle Meets Criminal Law

The principle of legality maintains that administrative authorities can only act as permitted by law. The principle limits governmental power, hinders arbitrariness and promotes separation of powers, transparency, certainty and fairness; it also protects human rights. The principle was developed in jurisprudence but today wears a formal garb pursuant to the Basic Laws.
The criminal law in Israel is operated by administrative authorities: the police, the public prosecution, the public defender’s office and even the courts, all exercising statutory powers. The lecture examines the application of the principle of legality throughout the Israeli criminal law and shows how it is operated in an arbitrary manner.
The lecture examines a variety of practices which are not authorized by Israeli law: the use of police informants and agents, plea bargains and more. The lecture suggests why the principle of legality is weak in the criminal law context.

Applying the Privilege against Self-Incrimination to Physical Examinations and Document Submission: The Autonomy to Choose a Defense and the Right to Passivity

The question of whether the privilege against self-incrimination should cover physical search as well as the obligation to provide documents requires a serious examination of the justifications underlying the privilege against self-incrimination, and is of particular relevance in the current age of technological transformations that expand the powers assigned to law-enforcement agencies to access knowledge and thoughts stored in individuals' minds. The paper addresses the comparative law regarding the applicability of the privilege to physical search and to the obligation to submit documents and discusses key justifications of the privilege against self-incrimination. The paper concludes that applying the privilege against self-incrimination to physical search and to the obligation to submit documents is necessary to protect the autonomy of suspects to choose their defense strategy.

Not All Victims Are the Same – On inequality between categories of crime victims

This research will highlight the fact that 'crime victims' do not comprise a homogenous single legal category, as far as legal rights are concerned. Within this underprivileged group, sub divisions exist, whereby the most vulnerable victims are discriminated.
In Israel, a hierarchy of crime victims exists, both in the social sense and in the normative one. Socially, at the top of the hierarchy are victims of terrorist attacks, who perceive to have an 'heroic' air about them. Beneath them are victims of other, 'regular' crimes.
On the normative level, Crime Victims' Rights Act 2001, and the Legal Aid Act, 1972 have created yet a different hierarchy.
This research will analyze the legal hierarchies and will challenge the basic principles underlining the current legal classification. Providing victims with legal assistance based on the type of the offence, and not on the victim's socio-legal situation, creates a substantial inequality between categories of victims.