Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Torture as a moral wrong
Review the case for torture
Review the case for torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Torture as a moral wrong
Introduction
In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead the discussion to the conclusion that the above statement is not sustainable
Setting the scene
Purpose.
The adversarial system involves competing versions of disputed events being advanced by parties to the litigation. The purpose of this ‘battle’ is much debated in the academic literature. Certain commentators emphasise the ‘truth seeking’ theory of adjudication and the belief that justice absolutely depends on it. Whilst the nature of ‘truth’ in itself may be contested, it is accepted, for the purpose of this discussion, that it is the central goal of the adversarial system. Murphy draws attention to” other legitimate concurrent goals” in the context of the judicial trial which include the upholding of ‘fairness’ the exclusion of evidence which may be ‘inherently suspect/unreliable’ or ‘prejudicial’. The role of evidence in the accurate reconstruction of past events and what restraints, if any, should be in place will be explored.
Fairness.
The adversarial system involves the State pitted against the individual defendant. There is little doubt that a significant disparity exists between the combatants. Stockdale and Casel claim that many of the basic rights extended to the defendant are attempts to compensate for ...
... middle of paper ...
...istopher Allen. Practical Guide to Evidence.4th.ed (2008) Routledge Cavendish.
Jonathan Doak & Claire McGourlay. Criminal Evidence in Context.2nd.ed (2009) Routledge-Cavendish.
Raymond Emson. Evidence. 4th.ed. (2008) Palgrave Macmillan
Andrew L.Choo. Evidence 2nd.ed. (2009). Oxford University Press.
J R Spencer. Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. (2008) Hart Publishing.
Adrian Keane. The Modern Law Of Evidence.6th.ed (2006) Oxford University Press
Maureen & John Spencer. Evidence. Concentrate. (2010) Oxford University Press
Tobias Thienel. The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture under International Law. (2006) The European Journal of International Law. Vol 17. No.2
Robert Munday. Evidence. Core Text Series. (2009) 5th.ed Oxford University Press
Colin Tapper. Cross & Tapper on Evidence.(2010) 12th.ed Oxford University Press
Justice can be achieved through various processes and principles if applied correctly, similarly justice can also be denied through these same processes and principles. This is exemplified through the Andrew Mallard case (M v The Queen 2005 HCA 68), and the missing persons case of Kieffen Raggett (2007) which shows how the incorrect application of processes like police investigations and coronial inquests can lead to justice being denied. Furthermore, legal principles such as; the rights of the accused and victims, are instrumental in achieving justice as shown through the application of these principles within these cases. These processes and principles can fail due to prejudged conclusions, police corruption, human error and cultural barriers
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
In the adversarial justice system, when the offender admits to the criminal act, there is no further controversy and the case promptly proceeds to sentencing. Physical evidence and victim or witness statements may often be overlooked and not considered. The confession is considered unequivocal evidence of guilt and a conviction is ensured. Indeed, the interrogation process’ sole purpose is to obtain a confession. Zimbardo (1967) estimated that “of those criminal cases that are solved, more than 80% are solved by a confession.” (Conti, 1999) Without the confession, convictions may be reduced significantly. So why does a person falsely confess to a crime if the likelihood of a conviction is eminent? A false confession to any crime is self-destructive and counterintuitive.
The adversary system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society through balancing the rights of all parties involved. The adversary system is a system of law where two opposing sides present their case to an impartial
Even though the common law rules governing the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings were abolished, many of the exceptions to the rules were persevered by subsection (1) under Section 118. The CJA 2003 only simplifies and relaxes certain aspects of the rule, and the exceptions to it which previously have contributed to difficulties in applying the rule. Any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible. Under the Statutory categories of admissibility Section 114(1)(d) will be considered only in cases where admissibility under the other statutory provisions and the retained common law rules is not allowed. The guidelines for the factors to consider regarding the test of admissibility is “interests of justice” in which Prosecutors need to take these factors into account when considering the likely admissibility of evidence that the prosecution propose to call.
The accused is not compellable as a witness in his own defence but a decision not to testify is usually regarded as tactically astute. In certain situations, s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 permits the jury to draw “such interference as appear proper” from the accused’s failure to give evidence or his refusal to answer to a particular question put to him. Despite the fundamental nature of the rights involved in silence, very great public dissatisfaction arose at the ease with which many defendants appeared able to evade justice by resorting to silence in the knowledge that this could do their case no harm and might well allow their very silence as a right to inject reasonable doubt into the trial. There was also great unease at the idea of defendants being permitted to advance defences and matters at trial for the first time, long after any satisfactory investigations into the matter had ceased to be possible. The experience of Northern Ireland legislation, based on recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee showed that there was a supportable case for allowing inferences to be drawn from silence.
In the article, “The Case For Torture”, Levin attempts to validate the use of torture as a reason to help save innocent lives. Throughout his article, Levin provides his readers with logical examples that help widen the perspectives of his audience. The author attempts to paint a clearer picture on why he believes that torture is a reasonable method of resolution. It is relatively challenging to conclude whether torture is acceptable or not. Should innocent lives be endangered? Torture is the practice of inflicting pain upon someone as a method to force him or her to do or say something (Levin 95). Should the life of one be sacrifices for the lives of many? Levin uses mainly pathos along with logos and ethos to successfully convince his readers that torture is not a
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.
Investigation Failures in the criminal investigation process are common within the criminal justice system. These can jeopardize a trial or cause miscarriage of justice, which is evident in the OJ Simpson trial. Investigation failure and improper handling of evidence, played an essential role in relation to the outcome of the trial. United Nations (2009), highlights that evidence provides best prospects and reliable information about an incident under investigation when is handled properly. Moreover, the article also indicates that evidence in investigation processes can be inadmissible if chain of custody is not maintained properly.
Ashworth and Redmayne (2005) argue how there should be strict safeguard not to proceed to court unless there is sufficient evidence. In this way, the court will not make the mistake of convicting an innocent person as well as reducing the stress for the prosecutors and they will save time in this process. The police use-to-use ‘prima facie test’ and this was use to assess if the available evidence would be acceptable to result a conviction by a reasonable jury or magistrates’ court. The CPS uses a code to see if the existing evidence can provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ and if it’s reliable enough to be used in court. The code states that a “case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it
For Professor Thayer who has long pointed out, (Thayer, page 2) "It is this institution of the jury which the accounts are for the common-law system of evidence. " It has been believed that the description of the German jury should prove interesting and instructive. There is the courtroom that in which the trial is about to be