Victimization due to Sloppy investigation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/jwzc0305Keywords:
Victim, Victimisation, Victim satisfaction, Accused, guilty, acquittal, criminal justice system,, investigation, prosecution, witness examination, Overt act.Abstract
The Criminal Procedure Code 235 (1) stresses that the threshold of evidence be raised beyond reasonable doubt so as to reduce the risk of false convictions. By raising the standard of proof, more criminals are likely to escape the clutches of Law, weakening the incapacitating and deterrent impact of the criminal justice system. The researcher’s study shows that many of the analysed cases ended in acquittal on flimsy grounds and some of the cases in honourable acquittal due to shoddy investigation. Connection between the crime and the criminal has to be proved beyond reasonable doubts so the victim satisfaction, the prime aim of the CJS is established. The joined endeavor of the Criminal justice system will prove to be a friend, philosopher and guide to the victims, the gate keepers of the CJS often
Downloads
References
1. Anand, A. S. (1999). The Indian judiciary in the 21st century. India International
2. Centre Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Monsoon 1999), pp. 61-78
3. Tapper Colin. (1973). Criminal Law Revision Committee Eleventh Report: Character
4. Evidence (Continued). The Modern Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Mar., 1973), Pp. 167-174
5. Dwyer, J. A. (1951). Acquittals or Convictions as Bars to Prosecutions for Perjury.
6. Duke Bar Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Mar., 1951), pp. 101-121
7. Hamer David. A Dynamic Reconstruction of the Presumption of Innocence. Oxford J Legal Studies (2011)doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqr007 Joep Sonnemans and Frans van Dijk Errors in Judicial Decisions: Experimental Results. J Law Econ Organ (2012) 28(4): 687-716 first published online January 12, 2011doi:10.1093/jleo/ewq019
8. Fergusan Meghan. (2010). Balancing lenity, rationality, and Finality: a case for special Verdict Forms in cases involving overlapping Federal criminal offenses. Duke Law Journal ,Vol. 59:1195 Purewal Nav. Jane Creba shooting acquittals sting, but justice has been done
9. Bibelhauser Rob. (2012). Why the Acquittal of Roger Clemens Should Mean the End of Washington's Steroid Witch Hunt.Reason Online, 1 July 2012
10. Acquittal Of Dr. J. Bodkin Adams: Judge's Summing-Up. (1957). The British Medical Journal , 1 (5024), 954-955.
11. Baldwin, J., & mcconville, M. J. (1974). The Acquittal Rate of Professional Criminals: A Critical Note. The Modern Law Review , 37 (4), 439-443.
12. Blumstein, A. (1967). Systems Analysis and the Criminal Justice System. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 374, 92-100.
13. Charge Of Manslaughter By Neglect: Acquittal Of Medical Man. (1931). The British Medical Journal , 2 (3697), 925.
14. Conviction of an Accessory after Acquittal of the Principal. (1918). Columbia Law Review , 18 (5), 471- 475.
15. Conviction of One Degree of an Offense as Acquittal of All Higher Degrees. (1929). The Yale Law Journal
, 38 (7), 978-983.
16. Crime and Acquittal. (2006). Economic and Political Weekly , 41 (10), 845.
17. Criminal Law. Effect of Acquittal of the Principal upon Subsequent Trial of an Accessory. (1933). Virginia Law Review , 19 (7), 742.
18. Criminal Law. Former Jeopardy. Acquittal before Court Where Some of Justices Were. (1914). Harvard Law Review , 27 (3), 280-281.
19. Criminal Law: Directed Verdict of Acquittal. (1917). Michigan Law Review , 15 (8), 667.
20. Davis, R. C. (1982). PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT WITNESSES: INTRODUCING
GREATER RATIONALITY INTO. The Justice System Journal , 7 (2), 278-287.
21. Denning, A. (1982). What Next in The Law (reprint ed.). OUP.
22. Devitt, E. J. (1961). Ten Commandments of the New Judge. ABA , 47 (12), 1175-77.
23. Double Jeopardy and Federal Prosecution after State Jury Acquittal. (1982). Michigan Law Review , 80 (5), 1073-1094.
24. Elliott, D. S. (1989). Procedures in Family Violence Crimes. Crime and Justice, , 11 (Family Violence (1989)), 427-480.
25. Evidence. Acquittal of Penal Charge. Evidence in Civil Action. Forfeiture. (1919). The Yale Law Journal
, 29 (1), 131.
26. Evidence: Other Offenses: Acquittal: Effect of Acquittal on Admissibility of Evidence ofother Offenses. (1926). California Law Review, , 14 (3), 252-254.
27. Foote, D. H. (1992). The Benevolent Paternalism of Japanese Criminal Justice. California Law Review , 80 (2), 317-390.
28. Ford, D. A. (1983). Wife Battery and Criminal Justice: A Study of Victim Decision-Making. Family Relations , 32 (4), 463-475.
29. Former Acquittal under a Defective Indictment. (1896). Harvard Law Review , 10 (4), 243-244.
30. Government Action under Civil Statute: Effect of Prior Criminal Acquittal. (1959). Duke Law Journal , 1959 (1), 146-150.
31. Hagan, J. (1977). Criminal Justice in Rural and Urban Communities: A Study of the Bureaucratization of Justice. Social Forces , 55 (3), 587-612.
32. Haney, C. (1982). Criminal Justice and the Nineteenth-Century Paradigm: The Triumph of Psychological Individualism in the "Formative Era". Law and Human Behavior , 6 (3/4 Historical Lessons for contemporaryproblems), 191-235.
33. Homicide. Acquittal of Higher Offense. Jeopardy. (1907). The Virginia Law Register , 13 (1), 82.
34. Judgment. Res Judicata. Acquittal of Criminal Offense. State v. Roach, 112 Pac., 150 (Kan.). (1911). The Yale Law Journal , 20 (8), 667-668.
35. Larceny. Former Acquittal. (1904, November). The Virginia Law Register , 661.
36. Levin, J. P. (1975). The Impact of "Gideon" : The Performance of Public & Private Criminal Defense Lawyers. Polity , 8 (2), 215-240.
37. Malicious Prosecution. Probable Cause. Acquittal of Plaintiff as Evidence. (1912). Harvard Law Review,
, 25 (6), 568.
38. Mandamus to Review Judgments of Acquittal in Federal Courts. (1961). The Yale Law Journal , 71 (1), 171-181.
39. Moore, R. W. (1895). Criminal Trials. The Virginia Law Register , 1 (5), 327-339.
40. New Trials after Verdicts of Acquittal. (1904). Columbia Law Review , 4 (8), 590-591.
41. Perjury: Acquittal of Crime Charged No Bar to Subsequent Prosecution for Perjury. (1922). Michigan Law Review , 20 (7), 802.
42. Peter H. Solomon, J. (1987). The Case of the Vanishing Acquittal: Informal Norms and the Practice of Soviet criminaljustice. Soviet Studies , 39 (4), 531-555.
43. Phillips, T. W. (1961). The Motion for Acquittal: A Neglected Safeguard. The Yale Law Journal, , 70 (7), 1151-1165.
44. Quigley, M. (1925). Truth at Court Trials. The Virginia Law Register , 11 (8), 464-469.
45. Res Judicata. What Judgments Are Conclusive. Acquittal of False Swearing as Precluding. (1933). Harvard Law Review , 46 (4), 723-724.
46. Spiro, J. A. (1985). A Social Service Lever for Criminal Justice Sentencing. Social Service Review , 59 (1), 95-106.
47. Suresh, H. (1996). Human Rights and Criminal Justice Functionaries. Economic and Political Weekly , 31 (24), 1441-1444.
48. Taylor, D. B. (2008). A Brief Guide to Writing a Literature Reveiw. Writing in the Health Sciences: a comprehensive guide , 1 (1).
49. Thoresby, R. (1973). Practice Direction. Costs on Acquittal. The Modern Law Review , 36 (6), 643-646.
50. Use of Mandamus to Nullify an Arbitrary Acquittal in a Criminal Prosecution. (1962). Columbia Law Review , 62 (2), 332-351.
51. White, A. M. (1925). Murder Trials in England. The Virginia Law Register , 11 (7), 385-394.
52. Zander, M. (1974). The Acquittal Rate of Professional Criminals: A Reply. The Modern Law Review , 37 (4), 444-449.
53. Http://law.leiden.edu/organisation/metajuridica/vvi/research/access-to-justice/access-to-justice/the- concept.html
54. Http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/oct/06/access-to-justice-legal-aid-cuts
55. Http://www.accesstojustice.gov.au/Pages/aboutaccesstojustice.aspx?Tabinfocus=accesstojustice
56. Http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/democraticgovernance/focus_areas/focus_justice_ law/legal_empowerment/focus_areas/rule_of_law_accesstojustice.htmlHttp://dspace.jgu.edu.in:8080/ds pace/bitstream/10739/57/1/Justice%20Without%20Delay%20(3).pdf
57. Http://www.indianet.nl/pdf/accesstojustice.pdf
58. Http://thejusticegap.com/News/no-judgment-no-justice/ Http://thejusticegap.com/2012/01/rethinking- double-jeopardy/ Http://thejusticegap.com/2012/07/pc-harwood-bad-character-evidence/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
