Criminal trials are concerned with interests of the defendant, they do not allow victims to share their stories. Victims are not given a formal or active role in all criminal trials. Testimonies from victims are subject to examination. This does not provide an adequate process for transitional
The court has the responsibly of determining the innocence and/or guilt of any suspect during a judicial proceeding whether criminal, civil, and/or both. The suspect while involved in this component is identified as being a defendant, and will be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges brought against them as they obtained evidence is presented by the prosecution. Based upon the verdict of the court, the defendant will be either found guilty or not guilty of the alleged offense. If the defendant is found guilty of the charges(s), they will receive a sentence issued by the presiding judge who will determine the appropriate punishment established by both the state law and statute for the offense. After the punishment is imposed, the defendant is then remanded into the custody of the sheriff/corrections to carry out the
Sometimes a criminal investigation may not produce any further leads causing the case to be set aside. This is why the investigator utilizes twelve essential questions to guide the investigation and determine the solvability of the case. This is also why the investigator works closely with prosecutors to determine the solidity of a case and whether to bring the suspect to
The defendant appeal and succeeded and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to the risk of the sexual transmitted infection and to whether they knew the defendant HIV condition. Whether the complainant had in fact consented to the risk of the disease and consequently the defendant has a defence to an offence was an issue of fact which was case specific. Owing to those circumstances the conviction the case was ordered for retrial. Mohammed was sentence to consecutive 3 and 4 years. The appeal preferred raise issue of legal and public about the circumstance which the defendant may be found guilty of criminal offense as a result of infecting another
No cause reaches the stage of litigation unless there are two sides to it. If the witnesses on one side deny or qualify the statements made by those on the other, which side is telling the truth? Not necessarily which side is offering perjured testimony, there is far less intentional perjury in the courts than the inexperienced would believe, but which side is honestly mistaken? for, on the other hand, evidence itself is far less trustworthy than the public usually
14). Using torture as a way to extract evidence is an inhumane way to treat those under accusation.The argument that a confession given under these circumstances is legitimate, is a false claim. This is due to the victim's mindset being compromised from the extreme and extensive methods of torture. Another example of the unacceptable evidence used in court against those accused is the presence of the “devil’s mark”. “The belief was that the devil branded the bodies of witches with symbolic yet concrete corporeal malformations such as marks and growths” (Darr, 361).
Furthermore, there can be several factors at play when a wrongful conviction occurs and each case is unique. Three of the more common and detrimental factors that will be explored in this essay are eyewitness error, the use of jailhouse informants and professional and institutional misconduct. Firstly, eyewitness testimony can be a major contributor to a conviction and is an important factor in wrongful conviction (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p. 227). Witness recall and, frankly, the human emory are not as reliable as previously thought. In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227).
prosecution, which led them to believe that there were many issues within the system that led to the wrongful conviction that needed to be fixed so another minority was not charged with a murder that was not committed by them. The Inquiry found that the investigation was not done suitably for the standards that the police, and the Crown have. The case’s evidence was insufficient due to lack of investigation at the crime scene, of the witnesses, and of the charges pursued. There was also an insufficient amount of sensitivity of this case due to the fact that it was the prosecution of a visible minority and the lack of training done on the respect to sensitivity on visible minorities. As well as the absence of sufficient review led to the wrongful conviction because they didn’t review the first eyewitness reports and relied only on the second report, which were influenced by an incompetent and unprofessional
In the contemporary criminal justice process, the community is represented by the state and has no involvement. The victim has no say about what will happen to the offender and may have many lingering questions on why this happened to them and may never be able to discover the answers to these questions. The offender may take accountability for his or her actions. If the offender insists he or she did not commit the crime there is the cost of a trial, the cost of possible prison or other punishment methods, and any other costs that may come up. There is a greater chance of the offender committing more crimes
Both parts have caused great concern, especially a radical departure from the current rules of evidence. Part VII eliminate any protection given to the accused by the Evidence Act 1950. The use of the summary of evidence (contrary to the evidence itself) and lower the threshold of admissibility would pose a serious obstacle to a fair trial. Above all, a radical departure from the ordinary rules of evidence could negatively affect the right of the accused to a fair trial. Admissibility of statements made by any person who is dead or cannot be found or is incapable of giving evidence would be unfair and unjust because such person / witness cannot be cross-examined on his statement (Section 8).