1.1 Background Criminal Procedure Code in Malaysia
Criminal procedure is the body of state and federal constitutional provisions, statutes, court rules, and other laws governing the administration of justice in criminal cases. The term encompasses procedures that the government must follow during the entire course of a criminal case, ranging from the initial investigation of an individual suspected of criminal activity, through arrest, arraignment, plea negotiations, pre-trial hearings, trial, post-trial motions, pre-sentence interviews, sentencing, appeals, and probation and parole proceedings. The rules of criminal procedure may also apply after a defendant has been unconditionally released following an acquittal.
Criminal procedures are
…show more content…
The CPC has applied throughout Malaysia since 10 January 1976. It was first introduced in 1927 to govern criminal procedure in the then Federated Malay States. It was revised in 1999 and has been amended several times, most recently in 2006 via the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2006 (Act A1274) following the publication in 2005 of the Report of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police (The Royal Commission) and subsequently of the Report of the Independent Inquiry Commission concerning the ketuk-ketampi (‘nude squat’) incident. Although not all the Royal Commission’s key recommendations for reform have been implemented, those that have been included in the amendments to the CPC by act A1274 should contribute towards improving the criminal process ( in particular, at the pre-trial stage) and the battered image of the Polis Di Raja Malaysia (Royal Malaysia Police) (PDRM).
The CPC provides rules of general criminal procedure. There are additional rules of criminal; procedure governing specific situations example:
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Act
…show more content…
Trial
3. Post-trial
(A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System by Wan Arfah Hamzah published 8th December 2011)
1.1 Why Criminal Procedure Rules Matter
The rules of criminal procedure are extremely important to defendants because they are designed to guarantee constitutional due process to those individuals charged with a crime. Criminal convictions can carry severe consequences, including: Paying steep fines and court costs, Loss of liberty by imprisonment and Loss of civil liberties, like the right to carry a weapon and the right to vote. A criminal conviction can also carry a permanent stigma. Criminal procedures are designed to make sure that any given defendant receives due process and their constitutional rights are protected. Probably one of the most famous examples of criminal procedure protecting constitutional rights is the Miranda warning. After the Supreme Court 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, lawmakers in various states began implementing procedures to ensure that defendants were given warnings before they made statements to the police. Prior to 1966, very few states had procedures in place to ensure that the constitutional rights of defendants were protected. Because of rules like these, defendants have the right to confront witnesses and the right to remain silent, even during
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.
The court stated that the suspect must be warned before any questioning that he or she has a right to remain silent, that anything he or she says can be used against him or her in a court of law, that he or she has the right to an attorney, and if he or she cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him or her prior to any questioning. These rights must be considered to him or her throughout the interrogation (Miranda v.
Miranda v. Arizona Bashlor, 1 Miranda v. Arizona: Rights of the Accused Lauren Bashlor Liberty High School AP Government 3AB The U.S. Supreme Court?s compromise in the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court case referred to three different court cases aside from Miranda v. Arizona case. Each of the three different court cases involved the rights of the accused individuals (U.S Courts, 2015a). Miranda v. Arizona court case dealt with an individual being accused of kidnapping and raping a young woman. Miranda had been questioned and interrogated by the police, he also confessed and signed a written confession during the interrogation, without being read his rights and especially his right to a lawyer and if he could not afford one then one would be given to him (U.S Courts, 2015b). Miranda v. Arizona established that an individual being accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and anything you say can be used against you in the court of law.
This allows the suspected criminal to be aware of his rights, which could allow him to avoid things such as a false confessions due to intimidation. The miranda rights have had such a big impact that they’ve now become something so basic and elementary that we now take it for granted and consider it the norm. D. Arguments Miranda’s party argued that his confession wasn’t admissible in court due to the fact that his constitutional rights had been violated. They stated that, he was deprived of having an attorney with him and that he was never aware that he had the right to remain silent, thus it was easier to coerce him into confession.
Response: Miranda v. Arizona was a case that focused on four separate court cases that involved custodial interrogations (USC, 2015). Each of these cases involved subjects being questioned by officers in rooms cut off from the general public. The main issue with these interrogations was the fact that none of the subjects were given a full advisory of their rights at the beginning of their
Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart 384 U.S. 436 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974. This case involves the fifth and sixth amendments of the US constitution, as well as the grand jury indictment clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his
Arizona, Miranda was the plaintiff. The arguments for him were that at the time he was arrested and interrogated, he was not notified that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, and that he had the right to have an attorney present and he would be appointed one if he could not afford one. Essentially, the plaintiff wanted to make sure everyone will always be informed of his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The defendant in this case, the state of Arizona, argued that Miranda still willingly offered his confession to the police, fully aware of his rights due to prior criminal issues he had
Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).
Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).
Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not immediately informed of his Miranda rights, although he was questioned by police. Under the public-safety exception to the law, law enforcement may question a suspect without invoking Miranda if the police have credible reason to believe the suspect may have information about an imminent threat to public safety. Once he was read his Miranda rights, police said Tsarnaev stopped answering questions (Imbriano, 2013). Conclusion Miranda v. Arizona, although nearly 50 years old, stands as one of the most well-known and important Supreme Court rulings.
The Constitution guarantees rights and fair treatment for everyone. The rights that the Founders outlined in the Constitution include those reserved for the federal government as well as those reserved for the people. These rights have been altered throughout the years, and some continue to be debated. Policies have been put in place to deal with those who decide to disturb the peace and break the laws. The structure of America’s society relies on these rights and laws.
Lippman, Matthew. (2017). Essential Criminal Law (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Malani, Anup. (2007)
The reason that due process is so important in the American criminal justice system is because it is a social justice a belief of right and wrong. Due process is based on the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, the constitutional amendments are to make sure that a person cannot be accused of a crime without a grand jury investigation, they have the right to an attorney and a person should not be deprived of life. For example if a person was being accused of robbery but there was no evidence that this person did the crime he/she would need to be represented by an attorney to plead their innocence than the case would be taken in front of a jury for them to deliberate on whether this person should be found guilty
Case Brief Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: The Miranda warning, which informs criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney while they are in police custody or being questioned in a detention facility, was created by the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was brought by Ernesto Miranda, who was detained under the charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He wasn't told of his right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being questioned by the police, so Miranda admitted to the crimes while being interviewed. The confession was admitted into evidence during the trial, and Miranda was found guilty. Procedural History: After Miranda was convicted, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who reaffirmed his rights had not been violated.
In the formal criminal justice process, there are important decision makers that decide whether to keep the offender in the system or dismiss the suspect with no future consequences. Suppose a law was set in place