They reported that in the case Furman v Georgia (1972) it was ruled that, “the Court invalidated existing death penalty laws because they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment” (par. 3). Later on in the case Gregg v Georgia (1976) the Supreme court ruled that, “The Court held the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional as it could serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence” (par. 5). As further rulings go on, it is eventually determined that with careful statues put in place that limits the abilities of the jury to rule capital punishment, the death penalty is officially said to not be unconstitutional.
The plaintiff must furthermore employ this standard to establish that the defamatory material relates to his reputation and not that of another. A presumption of wrongfulness ensues. In refutation of this presumption, the defendant may assert justifications similar to those listed in the context of criminal defamation. Intention on the part of the defendant, alleged but not proven by the plaintiff, requires both deliberate action and cognizance of the wrongfulness thereof. Publication of defamatory material leads to a presumption of deliberate action by the defendant which the defendant may refute by establishing mistake or jest.
Following the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, every individual charged with an offense is considered as being innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the prosecution must prove that the accused individual is guilty by providing reasonable evidence. Nevertheless, in some cases, the burden of proof may fall on the defense side. In addition, it should be highlighted that criminal responsibility and/or sanctions are imposed only if there is a clear criminal intention. That is to say, the mental state of the accused is taken into consideration.
It always consist of harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm and according to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law, “the core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people.”(Feinman, Jay(2010)). It involves four essential elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation and remoteness of damages. Duty of care: It refers to the relationships which the law recognizes as giving rise to a legal duty to take care. (Annon, n.d.). It determines the existence of a legally responsibility and legal duty is imposed in different typical situations.
What is necessity? The defence of necessity, otherwise known as compulsion, arises when a person choses to break the law in order to avoid an imminent evil, this situation whether brought about by the force of the surrounding circumstances or by human influence such as compulsion, duress or coercion is treated uniformly by the law. The defence is invoked where the conduct of the defendant was directed against an innocent third party to protect the interest of the defendant or another third party from danger. Necessity is a legal defence that, when successful, can find a crime that has been recognised in the criminal law, to usually be void of the element of unlawfulness. Whether or not the defendant’s conduct would be covered by the defence of necessity will depend on the specific facts of the case.
It entails the court asking if the accused’s conduct caused the unlawful consequence. It is only relevant for consequence crimes, such as murder or arson, and there must be a causal link between the conduct of the accused and the unlawful consequence. In order to determine if there is a link, the court makes use of two tests: factual and legal causation. 2 1 Factual causation Factual causation links the conduct of the accused to the end result of the unlawful consequence. For factual causation, we use the conditio sine qua non test which translates to the “but for” test and is used in practice as “but for the accused’s conduct, would the victim have suffered the same fate?” 2 2 Legal causation Legal causation is when we establish, based on policy considerations, whether it is reasonable and fair to hold somebody criminally liable for their conduct.
A prima facie case, then, is one that is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side. In Man bin Abbas, Howes J. seemed to indicate that when a prima facie case at the end of the prosecution case was made out, and the defence was called, the magistrate must convict should the accused elect to remain silent. In case of PP v Chin Yoke where the court has applied this approach held that the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt in order to allow the calling of the defence. In Ong Kiang Kek v PP, Wee Chong Jin CJ stated that no conviction can be warranted unless at the close of the case for the prosecution, the court is left with no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Besides, a similar approach was adopted in PP v Saimin where Sharma J upheld that the prosecution must be able to established the burden of proof throughout the trial.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s GHCL Employees Stock Opition Trust -vs- M/s India Infoline Limited, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 505, it is held that summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to recod his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima face case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on
Role of Victim in Criminal Justice System in India recent trends More than fifty years ago Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo of the United States Supreme Court wrote "justice, though due to accused, is due to accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true." The fundamental principle of a judicial system is fair trial and justice to both, the accused and the victim of crime. In order to apply this principle there involves a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests of the accused, the public and the victim.
The purpose of civil law is to deal with the disputes between these parties where compensation is awarded to the victim. Criminal Law is the body of law that deals “with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses” . The purpose of criminal law is to maintain the stability of the state and society by punishing offenders and deterring them and others from offending. They have different structures when it comes to their proceedings. Civil proceedings can take place in different courts depending on the remedies being sought.