Discrimination In Criminal Justice

3015 Words13 Pages

The access of the utmost standard of physical and mental health without discrimination is the basic right of every human being. Any violation of these basic rights results in the compromise and elimination of the human rights. However, when a person is accused of some grave crime, his fundamental rights are stake. The Oxford Dictionary defines accused as, “a person or group of people who are charged with or on trial for a crime”. An offence is defined as an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. An Accused is often confined when found guilty of the most grave of criminal offences and as a consequence, it is perhaps a basic instinct which determines that retribution, and only retribution is warranted
…show more content…
One of the most serious abuses of governmental power that the Framers sought to prevent was the imprisonment or detention of citizens without an indication of why they were being held. The Supreme Court in Fay v. Noia further declared that the “government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man 's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to confirm with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release”


Self Incrimination In addition to the guarantee of a jury trial, the Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself." The accused, however, cannot simply avoid testifying because of potential embarrassment. Rather, they must have a legitimate concern that their testimony will contribute to their conviction of a crime. Persons accused of crimes or witnesses in legal proceedings will often invoke this right by “pleading the Fifth” or by “claiming their Fifth Amendment rights.”
…show more content…
Interestingly, both India and United States has imbibed these fundamental concepts into their legal frameworks. Despite having basic difference in their criminal justice system, India being adversarial and United States being Inquisitorial set-ups, both these countries have more or less adhered to the like principles to safeguard the rights of the accused. Be it the writ of Habeas Corpus, the concept of Double jeopardy or self incrimination, both Indian and American legal system deals with it in like manner. In fact, some these provisions mentioned in Indian Constitution have been directly taken from the Constitution of America. The only major difference lies in the criminal Justice System in both the countries. While, United States follows the procedure of Jury Trial in determining the guilt of an accused, the same is not applicable in India. In India, the Jury does not play any active role in determining the guilt of the accused. However, the judiciary has played a very significant role in both the countries. Be it the landmark decision of Miranda v/s Arizona wherein the American Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through

More about Discrimination In Criminal Justice

Open Document