Thus has arisen a need to take re-look the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code and also at the administrative set up of the Police with a view to restoring the morale of the people and simultaneously ensuring that the rule of law reigns. Relevance of the confession in the basic gist of the Evidence Act. Even in U.S.A. and U.K. the confessions recorded by the police are viewed with some suspicion. The stringency of exclusion of such confessions has, varied from time to time. However, the relevance of confession in criminal trial as a species of an admissions against the interest of the maker by virtue of Section 21 of the Evidence Act.
His acquittal led to the development of a standard that required that at the time of the crime, defendants knew the difference between right and wrong and that what they were doing was wrong. This standard rule has come to be known as the “right/wrong test”. Common-court judges have noted that is M’Naghten had been tried under this standard that he would not have been deemed freed of responsibility because he in fact knew the difference between right and wrong when he committed the
Inadmissible Evidence When discussing the outcome of criminal cases, evidence is a make or break factor. During trials, jury members rely heavily on the evidence presented to them over the arguments being made by prosecution and defense lawyers. Depending on the evidence admitted into court, it can be the nail on the coffin for some defendants to secure a conviction. Other defendants may walk free, despite the evidence against them, because the evidence may be deemed inadmissible in court; therefore, never presented to the jurors. There are a few factors to consider with evidence admissibility, and these include the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the exceptions to these rules, and the applicability during an actual
How did the judiciary of the Netherlands solve the conflict between freedom of expression and discriminatory hate speech in the second wilders case? Introduction The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental human right protected by treaties of several global and European institutions. In a democracy it might be necessary to avoid certain forms of speech that offend or promote hatred against others based on intolerance. The right to freedom of expression is considered essential for politicians and specifically for opposition politicians. The two Wilders cases display the conflict that can arise between freedom of speech and between the protection of a group of people from discriminatory hate speech.
One of the foundations of criminal law is to presume a man innocent until proven gulty. A close reading of the TADA Act assumes the accused to be guilty shifts the burden of proof on him to prove himself innocent. There would be no defence in case the Police arrests an innocent person and threatens and induces him to confess. There have been many such instances of injustice following the Mumbai blasts. The TADA Act is a very powerful tool in the hands of the state to arrest a person on false charges, terming them as terrorists and securing a conviction under the TADA using doctored confessions, as can be inferred from the
The objected were too many of the ways the Americans were treated by the British in matters of both crime and justice. This Amendment provides protections from unfair methods of prosecution and investigation which is therefore illegal according to the Sixth Amendment. Some of these rights however were given to English citizens and
Introduction Nowadays, crimes have become one of alarming events happened in our society, it is important that a new and improve criminal justice system might as well, be identified and carefully implemented. One of the major factors is that, justice is still on the rack and waiting to achieve by those victims. It somehow concludes that the old maxim is true, "Justice delayed, Justice denied". At some point, many people voice out their opinions that maybe it's because of too much giving attention on the principles of our law. They will not convict the accused people until no strong evidences will come out that will stated that they are the people who committed the crime.
When the court itself appoints an expert, the fact finder may find him/her almost infallible and may neglect the consideration of other factors when finding out the truth (McCahey, & Proman, 2011). In reality, mental health professionals should be aware and inform the court that they cannot provide "definite answers" especially to the question, "Did the defendant, at the time of the crime, appreciate right from wrong"? (Meyer & Weaver, 2006, Ch. 2). Thinking that these experts can offer absolute answers that determine incapacity or insanity "may be misleading, probably unethical, and downright untruthful" (Meyer & Weaver, 2006, Ch.
The report noted that at present, under Section 3 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act, such publications would be contempt only if a charge sheet had been filed in a criminal case. The Commission has suggested that the starting point of a criminal case should be from the time of arrest of an accused and not from the time of filing of the charge sheet. In the perception of the Commission such an amendment would prevent the media from prejudging or prejudicing the case. Another controversial recommendation suggested was to empower the High Court to direct a print or an electronic media to postpone publication or
So in the Criminal Justice System victim should be given a prominent space. Role of Victim in Criminal Justice System deserves special emphasis because now a day’s he or she is an informant and possibly a witness for the prosecution depending upon the police and the discretion of the Public Prosecutor. Unlike the accused victim has got no rights to protect his or her interests in the proceedings, which are conducted on his or her behalf by the state and its agencies. He has no rights to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused by trial court in a criminal case started by State. The State