an actual commentary to the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office), it is possible to see it as a sui generis body, mixing features of the executive and the judiciary power, a “transition” to judicial power. The trend is definitely toward this position. The public prosecutor’s office is not even an administrative office or an organ which could be focused on implementing government policy. Its status in the system of public power is specific. The public prosecutor’s office represents an organ for criminal justice.
He was be acquitted because the two of his vice-personalities committed the crimes without Milligan being aware of it. [ Reference to Wikipedia website-Billy Milligan] So, through this case, we can know that in the law the main-personality and the vice-personality have been defined as two different individual. The vice-personality committed the crime, the main-personality not need to receive the
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
This article states that ‘Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.’ The courts are therefore solely responsible for the administration of justice in the state, and it is therefore unconstitutional for any other body to attempt to administer justice. This also means that the courts are considered to be the primary body responsible for the resolution of disputes where there is a question regarding the application of the
Many officers don’t plan on going into an interview with the intent of coercing a confession out of a suspect, but they tend to let their preconceived notions run the interview. Instead of looking at the facts of a case, investigators run with their “gut feelings” and try to reach the outcome they are expecting. In this paper, I will discuss, and explain, how to avoid receiving false confessions and how to deal with the effects of a false confession from a suspect. Although many cases of false confessions happen because of long and rough interrogations, people can still falsely confess without the investigator doing
In that, only one interpretation can be manipulated during litigation in a courtroom. The opening statement narrates effectively and efficiently what the prosecuting party intends for the judge, jury and everyone else in the attending view. The examination in chief, follows this narration by question-answers that further roots the intended meaning into the judge and jury. The cross-examination only allows for the already given testimony to be contested and none other contradictory evidence from the defending party. Thus, the manipulation and interpretation of meaning is only one-sided(Coulthard and Johnson 2007, Luchjenbroers 1991, Pøidalová 1999).
Narco-analysis has been quite a debated topic in the past when comes to deciding its evidentiary value by the judiciary. Certain landmark cases happened in the past have also made it a debatable topic between the media and the common people. But since criminals are getting all sorts of technologies to commit a crime, if the police uses the old traditional methods of seeking the information from the criminals, then police with remain nothing more than a crippled organization. With the development of various scientific methods being used in a manner harmful to the society, it falls on the shoulders of the judiciary to make a conclusive decision on the admissibility and relevancy of any statement made under the influence of any torpor or subjecting
This is because he is informed that his action was unauthorized and does not comply with the superior rules. Therefore, he feels uncomfortable with his coworkers’ violent methods. Soon, he requests transfer to the Criminal Investigation Bureau, always hoping to find more righteous partners and also having learned that it is a convenient route to get a detective’s shield. According to the above description, the occurrence of police brutality is one of the plot and contains one of the ethical issue in this movie. We can see that this issue is not completely resolved.
If there was a crime committed in the community, the accused was brought to a jury. The judge presided over the trial and served as a legal expert… The jury heard the events and accused guilty or not-guilty (Is The American Jury System Still A Good Idea? ).” Jury trials should remain an option because because we as Americans have the right of the seventh , jurors are only told 100 percent of proven information, and the jurors are not influenced by media, people, or unproven information to make a decision and the jury is chosen for specific reasons to help lower the chances of discrimination against races and/or ethnicities. One reason the government should keep the jury system is because the Seventh Amendment supports the idea of keeping the jury system around. The Seventh Amendment guarantees that a persons accused of a crime can have a trial by jury .Getting rid of the jury system completely disown the Seventh Amendment also the Seventh Amendment protects us and or the persons getting
This, together with the routine new additions, literally clogs the system. In many cases, prisoners who are facing charges of grave, professional, violent crimes are outnumbered by others like suspected drug offenders, ticketless travellers, Railway alarm – chain pullers, and a variety of others who have technically violated law. Many of them are in jail only because they could not pay the fines imposed on them by courts. In some cases, prisoners prefer to continue in jail because they just cannot afford even a single meal a day outside! Then there are prisoners who prefer to spend a couple of months in jail then to pay "maintenance" to their wives as ordered by courts.