Criminal – Cognizable – no
permission or warrant is required. (Individual and/or society)
Crimnologyupdates
Procedural criminal law are the actual procedures at work to
investigate and prosecute criminal behavior.
Substantive criminal law interprets which acts are considered
crimes & how to administer punishments for crime. Substantive criminal law
defines those crimes and the punishments for those crimes.
Substantive criminal law is
composed of the following elements:
i.
the definitions of the types of offenses that
are held to be punishable;
ii.
the classification of crimes (as, for example,
felonies and misdemeanours in US, or crime, délit, and contravention in
continental law);
Crimes in French law are the most
serious offenses, punishable by death or prolonged imprisonment. A délit is any
offense punishable by a short prison sentence, usually from one to five years,
or a fine. Contraventions are minor offenses.
iii.
the principles and doctrines applied to the
judgment of crime that qualify the provisions of criminal legislation (such as
self-defense, necessity, insanity, and so forth);
iv.
and principles determining national jurisdiction
over crimes with an international aspect (crimes committed by foreigners, by
nationals abroad, or on ships and aircraft outside the national territory and
waters).
PPC – 511 sentences (other than
Hudood Ordinance 1979) – Three parts - Offences against human body; Offences
against Property; Offences against Religion)
1. Criminal
Complaint
2. Statement
of complainant is called FIR (Sec 154 of CrPc)
3. Investigation
Officer – Investigates under the contents of FIR – (Statements - Sec 161 PPC)
4. Chalan
is the complete information of complaint (Report)
5. Charge
framing (FIR to be read before the accused) Plead guilty or plead not guilty 6. Trail
begin
7. If
bail-able or Non-bail-able or Compoundable (state involved)
8. Written
Statement
9. Examination
in chief (Cross Examination)
10. Evidences
by both parties including witnesses
11. Judgment
Importance of Evidence in Criminal Law
Evidence plays a critical role in
determining the outcome of a case and can mean the difference between a guilty
verdict and an acquittal.
From direct evidence to expert
testimony, each type of evidence has value and must be presented effectively in
court.
Evidence plays a crucial role in
proving or disproving a defendant's guilt and building a solid defense.
Gathering and presenting strong evidence is not only important, but it is also
necessary for developing a compelling legal strategy.
Evidence can take many forms,
including direct, circumstantial, physical, and eyewitness and expert
testimony. Each type of evidence has its own strengths and weaknesses, and an
experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to use them effectively.
The process of gathering evidence for a defense case is a
meticulous one. It involves conducting a thorough investigation, utilizing
private investigators and other resources, interviewing witnesses, collecting
physical evidence, and obtaining expert analysis and testimony. Each piece of
evidence must be carefully examined and evaluated for its admissibility and
relevance to the case.
Presenting evidence in court is
an art form that requires skill and experience. Admissibility of evidence is a
critical factor that must be considered, and attorneys must develop effective
strategies for presenting evidence. This includes cross-examining witnesses and
experts, making effective opening and closing statements, and utilizing visual
aids and other tools to help convey their argument to the jury.
Types of Evidence in Criminal Cases
Different types of evidence can
be presented in criminal cases. Each has unique value and can be used to build
a strong defense.
Evidence that may be submitted
includes the following:
Direct evidence is evidence that proves a fact without any
inference or presumption. It is often referred to as the "smoking
gun" evidence. Examples include video footage, DNA samples, and
confessions. Direct evidence can be compelling in convincing a judge or jury of
a defendant's innocence.
Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires an inference
or presumption to connect it to a fact. It is not as strong as direct evidence
but can still be convincing in the right circumstances. Examples include a
defendant's proximity to the crime scene, motive, and opportunity to commit the
crime.
Physical evidence refers to tangible items that can be presented in
court to prove a fact. This can include fingerprints, weapons, clothing, and
other items found at the crime scene. Physical evidence is often considered the
most reliable because it is not subject to interpretation or bias.
Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence that is often relied
upon in criminal defense cases. It involves someone who has witnessed the crime
or has some knowledge about the events leading up to it. While eyewitness
testimony can be compelling, it is not always reliable, as it can be affected
by memory distortion, suggestion, and bias.
Expert testimony is another type of evidence that can be used in
criminal cases. This involves statements from an expert in a specific field,
such as forensic science, psychology, or medicine. Expert testimony can be very
persuasive, as it can help explain complex scientific or technical information
to the judge or jury.
Gathering Evidence to Build a Defense
Gathering evidence is a critical
step in building a solid defense. The defense team should thoroughly
investigate the case, utilizing all available resources.
Evidence-gathering methods can
include the following:
Investigators can be invaluable
in gathering evidence for a defense case. They have the skills and resources to
investigate and collect evidence that may not be readily available. This can
include conducting surveillance, interviewing witnesses, and collecting
physical evidence.
Interviewing witnesses is an
integral part of gathering evidence. Witnesses can provide key information
about the events leading up to the crime and can help identify suspects. It is
essential for the defense team to ask the right questions and to evaluate the
credibility of each witness carefully. Collecting physical evidence is another
critical defense-building step.
Presenting Evidence in Court
Strategies for presenting
evidence can include several different tactics. For example, the defense team
may present their evidence in a specific order staying organized and presenting
their evidence clearly and concisely.
Another strategy for presenting
evidence is cross-examining witnesses and experts. This can involve challenging
the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, exposing weaknesses in their
testimony, and highlighting inconsistencies in their statements. It can also
include challenging the conclusions reached by the prosecution's experts and
presenting alternative interpretations of the evidence.
Making effective opening and
closing statements is also critical in presenting evidence in court. Opening
statements can set the tone for the defense’s case, while closing statements
can summarize the evidence presented and provide a persuasive argument for the
defendant's innocence.
The definition of criminal conduct Legality
The principle of legality is
recognized in almost all legal systems throughout the world as the keystone of
the criminal law. It is employed in four senses.
The first is that there can be no
crime without a rule of law; thus, immoral or antisocial conduct not forbidden
and punished by law is not criminal. The law may be customary, as in some
common-law countries; in most countries, however, the only source of criminal
law is a statute (nullum crimen sine lege, “no crime without a law”).
Second, the principle of legality
directs that criminal statutes be interpreted strictly and that they not be
applied by analogical extension. If a criminal statute is ambiguous in its
meaning or application, it is often given a narrow interpretation favourable to
the accused. This does not mean that the law must be interpreted literally if
to do so would defeat the clear purpose of the statute.
Third, the principle of legality
forbids the application of the law retroactively. In order that a person may be
convicted, a law must have been in effect at the time the act was
committed.
Fourth, the language of criminal
statutes must be as clear and unambiguous as possible in order to provide fair
warning to the potential lawbreaker. In some countries statutes may even be
considered inapplicable if they are vague.
Protection against double jeopardy
Legal systems generally include
some restriction against prosecuting a person more than once for the same
offense. In Anglo-American law the most difficult problems of double jeopardy
involve the question of whether the second prosecution is for the “same” or a
“different” offense. It is held that acquittal or conviction of an offense
prohibits subsequent prosecution of a lesser offense that was included in the
first.
In many countries there are no
statutes of limitations for particularly heinous offenses, including capital
felonies in the United States and genocide and murder in Germany. In 1968 the
UN General Assembly adopted a Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory
Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Similarly, there is no
statute of limitations for prosecutions of the offenses of genocide, crimes
against humanity, and war crimes under the Rome Statute creating the ICC.
Requirements of jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of a court
refers to its capacity to take valid legal action. All governments claim
territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed wholly or partly within their
territory, including flag vessels (i.e., vessels registered in that country)
and embassies. The Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts
Committed on Board Aircraft (1963) and the Hague Convention for the Suppression
of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970) recognize that states have the right and
even the duty of jurisdiction with respect to any crime committed upon aircraft
registered in that state. Most nation-states also claim nationality
jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by their nationals, even when they
were committed in other countries. A third jurisdictional basis is known as
protective-principal jurisdiction, which gives criminal jurisdiction over
offenses committed against national interests. For example, persons who forge
currency of a country may commit a crime against that country even if the
forgeries are executed beyond the borders by persons who are not citizens. A
fourth jurisdictional basis of late 20th-century origin and with less universal
acceptance is similar to the third and is known as passive-personality
jurisdiction. In certain circumstances, violent crimes against nationals may
give rise to jurisdiction even if the crimes occur beyond the borders and the
offenders are not nationals. For example, when in 1985 the United States
attempted to arrest the hijackers on the Italian cruise ship MS Achille Lauro
because of the brutal shipboard murder of American citizen Leon Klinghoffer,
the claimed jurisdiction of the U.S. over the hijackers may have been based on
passive personality. Finally, international law recognizes that there are
universal jurisdiction crimes that may be tried by any country, regardless of
where the crimes occurred or the nationality of the offenders or the victims. A
long-accepted example of universal crimes giving jurisdiction to all national
courts is piracy on the high seas; all countries have jurisdiction to try
pirates. In the 20th century, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide,
and torture were added to the list of crimes giving rise to universal
jurisdiction.
Most legal systems do not
exercise the full range of jurisdiction they might claim. Nationals who commit
crimes in foreign countries may be extradited but only if required or
authorized by treaty with the country concerned. The constitutions and laws of some
countries prohibit their nationals from being extradited to other countries.
For example, motion-picture director Roman Polanski fled to France in 1978 to
avoid being imprisoned for child sexual assault in California. Because he held
dual French and Polish citizenship, he avoided extradition.
0 Comments