1. In the case Allenet de Ribemont v. France, the presumption of innocence was violated by comments made by the French Minister of Interior at a press conference. The argument includes that presumption of innocence could be infringed only by a judicial authority at the conclusion of proceedings ending in a conviction, but in this case, the court’s reasoning suggested it regarded the defendant as guilty in advance. The court finds when the high-ranking officers of the French police referred to Mr. Allent de Ribemont, without qualification, as an accomplice to murder, declaring guilt by encouraging the public to view him as guilty, as well as prejudicing the assessment of the facts by the judicial authority. Therefore, there has been a breach of Article 6 (2) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” How does this presumption of guilt compare to U.S. law, which states, “Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law”? …show more content…
Supreme courts has stipulated that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional principle which is binding on the states, Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. Does the presumption of innocence have different connotations in the U.S. opposed to France? Is there a correlation to presumption of innocence and the concept that the accused has the right to remain silent? Should French procedures include protections for the accused during Police interrogation as well as the judicial investigation? Additionally, what are the restraints on media regarding presumption of innocence balanced with rights of free speech in the
Among the many differing cases of wrongfully convicted Canadians, the case of Guy Paul Morin is very interesting. There were many issues that caused an innocent man from Queensville, Ontario to be convicted of the murder of Christine Jessop. We’re going to look at how the police failed to conduct a thorough investigation, how the court system failed, and how cases like this can be preventing in the future.
One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial. In total this was 444-days after the accused was charged with the impaired driving offence. The final verdict of this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the decision by the Ontario Court of appeal that decided that the trial delay was reasonable due to lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay.
Jain, M. (2001). Mitigating the Dangers of Capital Convictions Based on Eyewitness Testimony Through Treason's Two-Witness Rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 761-790.
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
Another powerful opinion yearning to be exposed, is the one held by Henry Drummond, the defense’s attorney. The lawyer undoubtedly came to d...
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
In society’s minds, they would like to believe that the judicial system is unflawed and is able to function without any mistakes. On paper, the judicial system seems to be in perfect working order; however, in reality, it is anything but perfect. Cases are misjudged and mistried far too often for the system to be dubbed “fair” and “just.” An example of a mistrial occurs in The Stranger, during Meursault’s trial for murder. By all means, Meursault is undoubtedly guilty of killing a man, but nevertheless his trial was still unfair. This occurs because the judicial system fails to correctly convict Meursault of manslaughter rather than murder. According to the events in The Stranger, Meursault should have been convicted of manslaughter; however, he is on trial for murder because of the unjustness of the judicial system and the assumed presence of malice.
In response, the court system for many years has tried to formulate the policies that will address the issue of public confidence. In the Roberts’ article, it is suggested that even though a slight majority of Canadians have trust in the justice system, the citizens seem to have more faith in institutions other than in the courts (159). This difference is mainly because of the perception that the public has on the justice system in regards to its practices (Roberts 164). The public appears dissatisfied with some practices of the court leading to decreased confidence in the system. For instance, most Canadians feel that the justice system failed to reduce crime in the country. Instead, they argue that it is among the primary causes of increased crime rate (Roberts 164). Most citizens claim that allowing a guilty person walk free is worse off when compared to convicting an innocent one (Roberts 171). Boosting public confidence is, thus, critical to improving the criminal judge. Apparently, this can be accomplished as mentioned by Anthony N. Doob in the article, increased engagement of an ordinary citizen in the courts is needed,
Prof. Jeffrey A. Brauch, The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law, Vol.11, Columbia Journal of European Law (2004-2005)
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor