1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of any criminal justice system is to punish the offender and protect the innocent. Offenders are the threat to the society. State machinery is operative to prevent the crime and penalize the offender. But it is a matter of concern for all that innocent must not suffer in the name of justice. There seem two models in general‚ which provides different measures to deal with the offender to bring him to justice. They may be broadly termed as inquisitorial model and
Premium Law Common law Civil law
herein. The respondent Arundhati Roy‚ who is not a party to the writ proceedings‚ published an article entitled "The Greater Common Good" which was published in Outlook Magazine and in some portion of a book written by her. Two judges of this Court‚ forming the three-judge Bench felt that the comments made by her were‚ prima facie‚ a misrepresentation of the proceedings of the court. But‚ showing its magnanimity‚ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the matter rehabilitation and resettlement of the
Premium Judge Judge Narmada Bachao Andolan
incident to the Sheikhupura police‚ who‚ after investigation‚ filed a report‚ among others‚ under Section 509 PPC. The additional district magistrate convicted three boys under Section 509. An appeal was preferred to the learned additional sessions judge‚ Sheikhupura‚ who acquitted them‚ holding that no offence had been committed. He also held that boys had an equal right to be in the park and that the girls were ‘rowdy’‚ unaccompanied and without purdah (veil) and the college administration had been
Premium Abuse Sexual harassment Public space
between three to five years or even more. A number of circumstances could give rise to this delay: lawyers writing letters of adjournment of cases‚ inability of judges and magistrates to deliver judgments on time‚ failure of the police or prison authorities to produce accused persons in court for trial‚ the rule that once a magistrate or judge is transferred and a new one takes over a case‚ it has to start de novo‚ etc. * Here
Premium Court Law Judge
Kristi Sharpenburg Professor English 102 March 2014 Aaron Riley Hill The morning of October 31st‚ 2012 was a normal‚ typical October Tacoma morning. It was a brisk 41 degrees outside with clouds over head. They were gray in color and the drizzle showed no signs of stopping. Thankfully most of us need not worry about the chill‚ ways to stay dry or where our next source of nourishment will come from on morning such as these. Warm houses and roofs over our head protect most American from the
Premium Lawyer Jury Prosecutor
“All rise‚” a sexy baritone voice announced from the black muscle-bound Bailiff as he continued speaking to the brimming courtroom gallery‚ “The Superior Court is now in session. Honorable Judge Ricardo Sandoval presiding. Docket Sixty-Nine: Rutherford vs. Kim. Please be seated.” At the defense table‚ the legal counsel of Rearin sat with the Defendant alone until a creak of the back courtroom door exhibited a tidied-up Conor McKinley‚ whose stroll to the defense table was noticeable by the courtroom
Premium Black people African American Race
counter-productive. Recidivism rates are high. Drug Court is an alternative to incarceration that offers rehabilitation to criminal offenders. In drug court‚ the traditional functions of the U.S. justice system are profoundly altered. The judge is the leader of a treatment team. The judge makes all final decisions and holds a range of discretion unprecedented in the courtroom‚ including the type of treatment mandated and how to address relapse. In 1989‚ the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Miami-Dade County
Premium Judge Drug addiction Crime
the human rights of the defendants. He does this by representing the judge Justice Argyle as prejudice and out of touch with the time. This is shown by his careful selection of anecdotal evidence including the Judge’s motto‚ “We just don’t do this kind of thing in Birmingham”. Through this we understand Robertson’s attempt to show the narrow-mindedness of the judge in this way. He mocks him through his description of the judges verdict on the Oz Case with the metaphor “with the relief of a man making
Premium Law Judge Common law
and was as unlawful as an agreement expressly to fix prices. All factors that contribute prices‚ must be kept free to operate unconditioned by agreements. 4. Judge Hand would have probably been more careful and cautious in his analysis‚ but if the result of it would have been the same‚ he should have had the same verdict. As a Judge‚ he is supposed to apply the law‚ and if the law was not changed in the meantime‚ the effect should be the same independently of a war situation or allies. 5
Premium Law United States Jury
Tennessee. High school football coach and substitute science teacher‚ John T. Scopes was found guilty of violating the Butler Act. The jury did not hear the defense testimony‚ as the judge declared that all of the defense testimony on the Bible was irrelevant‚ and the jury should not be allowed to hear it. The judge declared that the Bible in question was the official Bible of the State of Tennessee‚ and that this was the King James Version. The defense attorney‚ Clarence Darrow‚ asked where were
Premium Scopes Trial William Jennings Bryan Clarence Darrow