scholarly journals The ‘Equality Of Arms’ In Macedonian Criminal Procedure

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
Olga Kosevaliska

Abstract The right to a fair trial is implemented in our criminal procedure and is one of the core values of our criminal justice system. This right is absolute and can’t be limited on any legal base. Its essence is fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court with guaranteeing of all the minimum rights of the defendant. One of those minimum rights is the right of equity of arms between the parties, the prosecutor and the defense. In our Law on Criminal Procedure, it is provided that the defense has the same rights and duties as the prosecutor except those rights that belong to the prosecutor as a state authority. Therefore, the purpose of this article is elaborating the right of ‘equity of arms’ and its misunderstanding in practice. Hence, we intend to show some case studies in which some evidence are not considered by the court just because they are not proposed by the prosecutor and they are crucial for the verdict.

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamil Mujuzi

South African law provides for circumstances in which victims of crime may participate in the criminal justice system at the investigation, prosecution (trial), sentencing and parole stages. In South Africa, a prison inmate has no right to parole although the courts have held that they have a right to be considered for parole. In some cases, the victims of crime have a right to make submissions to the Parole Board about whether the offender should be released on parole. Section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for the right of victims of crime to participate in parole proceedings. The purpose of this article is to discuss section 299A and illustrate ways in which victims of crime participate in the parole process. The author also recommends ways in which victims’ rights in section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act could be strengthened.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
Mansour Rahmdel

<em>Normally, the right to compensation refers to the victim’s compensation. The legislator also typically refers to the right to it, as the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code has done so in articles 14 and 15. But the present paper, refers not to the victim’s, but the accused right. The Criminal Procedure Code of 1912 and 1999 referred to the possibility of compensating the accused by the iniquitous private complainant. However, none of them referred to the government’s obligation to compensate to the innocent accused. In contrast, the Penal Code of 2014 stipulates the government’s obligation to compensate the defendant for damages, but does not rule out the possibility of compensation by iniquitous complainant. Certainly, it does not exempt the complainant to compensation. Reaffirming the responsibility of the government to offset the losses of innocent accused, in line with international conventions, is one of the highlights of the new code. But the lack of compensation for unjustified detention is one of the gaps in the new code. This paper proposes that the Iranian new code of criminal procedure, serves as a development in respecting the accused right in creating comprehensive compensation schemes.</em>


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan G. Hall

102 Cornell L. Rev. 1717 (2017)In the Preface to the 44th Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, Judge Alex Kozinski levels a number of criticisms against the modern American criminal justice system. Central among those criticisms is his assessment of the fundamental imbalance in criminal trials between the prosecution and the defense: “[W]e like to boast that our criminal justice system is heavily tilted in favor of criminal defendants because we’d rather that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted. There is reason to doubt it, because very few criminal defendants actually go free after trial.” Judge Kozinski’s concern—that the system is rigged to some degree in favor of the prosecution—is a relatively common one among defense attorneys and criminal justice reform advocates. Less common, however, are the specific measures Judge Kozinski proposes to ameliorate the criminal justice system’s flaws. One of his proposals that would work to rectify this imbalance centers on the right of the accused to receive a trial from his peers:Give criminal defendants the choice of a jury or bench trial . . . The prosecution has many institutional advantages, not the least being that they get to go first and thus have their theory of the case laid out before the defendant can present any evidence at all. I would think it fair to let the defendant get the choice of judge or jury.In many states, when a criminal defendant wants to waive the right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial, the defendant must first obtain the consent of the prosecutor. Scholars and practitioners frequently call the refusal of that consent the “prosecutorial veto,” and what Judge Kozinski proposes is its complete elimination from criminal procedure. The primary goal of this Note is to analyze the merits of that proposal. The Note will provide the relevant legal background to the issue, including the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the prosecutorial veto in Part I, and the various federal and state statutory approaches to the issue in Part II. Then, in Part III, the Note will consider the merits of Judge Kozinski’s proposal to eliminate the prosecutorial veto by exploring the policy arguments for it. Finally, in Part IV, the Note will make the case against the prosecutorial veto. The Note will conclude by agreeing with Judge Kozinski’s proposal and arguing for its adoption.


Criminologie ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-140
Author(s):  
José M. Rico

The main objective of this essay is to put forward some ideas in the right to punish. These ideas are put in the Canadian context and in relation to the criminal law. The criminal procedure and the criminal justice system. The first part defines the proper concepts : aims, justifications, scopes, limits and interconnections. Results cannot be properly evaluated if the basic definitions are not clear and precise. The second part presents a model for the revision and reform of criminal policies and practices. This model is based on a study of drug legislations and practices.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-187
Author(s):  
Maja Pilić ◽  
Zdravko Rajić

With the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the roles of the prosecutor and the court have been changed significantly compared to the earlier legislation, especially in the investigative procedure. According to the existing normative framework, the role of the court in the investigation is much more passive since at this stage of the procedure the court does not control the merits of conducting the investigation. The mixed accusatorial concept of investigation as the one existing in the criminal justice system of Bosnia and Herzegovina has led to certain restrictions on the rights of the defence in investigation. Investigation is an important stage in criminal proceedings that is conducted for evidence and data collecting necessary to decide whether to file an indictment or discontinue the proceedings, as well as for evidence that can be presented at the main hearing and upon which the judgment is rendered. It is therefore necessary to ensure that a proper and lawful investigation is conducted. This means to make sure that all parties involved in the investigation, especially defence are treated in a fair manner. The right to defence is a fundamental human and constitutional right guaranteed by international conventions. The right to defence results in several individual rights enjoyed by suspects in preliminary proceedings. In order to ensure effective judicial protection of the rights of the suspects, the paper analyses the domestic criminal justice system and presents comparative legal solutions regarding the protection of procedural rights of the defence in investigation. The fundamental issues in analysing regulatory framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina are the lack of effective judicial protection of procedural rights of the defence, the absence of an effective legal remedy to conduct an investigation facilitating the principle of a fair trial for defence and the principle of equality of arms in pre-trial proceedings. In addition, the paper analyses the issue of informing the suspect of an order for investigation, since according to applicable regulations, the suspect does not even need to know about an investigation conducted against him, which is a violation of the principle of right to a fair trial.


Author(s):  
Sophy Baird

Children are afforded a number of protections when they encounter the criminal justice system. The need for special protection stems from the vulnerable position children occupy in society. When children form part of the criminal justice system, either by being an offender, victim, or witness, they may be subjected to harm. To mitigate against the potential harm that may be caused, our law provides that criminal proceedings involving children should not be open to the public, subject to the discretion of the court. This protection naturally seems at odds with the principle of open justice. However, the courts have reconciled the limitation with the legal purpose it serves. For all the protection and the lengths that the law goes to protect the identity of children in this regard, it appears there is an unofficial timer dictating when this protection should end. The media have been at the forefront of this conundrum to the extent that they believe that once a child (offender, victim, or witness) turns 18 years old, they are free to reveal the child's identity. This belief, grounded in the right to freedom of expression and the principle of open justice, is at odds with the principle of child's best interests, right to dignity and the right to privacy. It also stares incredulously in the face of the aims of the Child Justice Act and the principles of restorative justice. Measured against the detrimental psychological effects experienced by child victims, witnesses, and offenders, this article aims to critically analyse the legal and practical implications of revealing the identity of child victims, witnesses, and offenders after they turn 18 years old.


2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 238
Author(s):  
Rena Yulia

AbstractThe victim of domestic violence had needed of protection concept thatdifferent with another victim of violent crime. Participation of victim haswant to give justice for all. It is, because punishment to offender brings theimpact for victim. Restorative justice is a concept in criminal justice systemwhich is participation victim with it. The present of criminal justice system isthe offender oriented. Victim has not position to considerate offenderpunishment. Only offender can get the right and the victim hopeless. In thedomestic violence, victim and offender have relationship. Because there area family. · So, probability they have some interest in economic and relation.When wife become a victim and husband as offender, his wife hasdependency economic from her husband. It means, if husband get a decisionfrom judge, his wife will be suffer. Domestic violence is different crime. So, itis necessQ/y to made some different concept. In this article, will discussedabout alternative of legal protection for victim of domestic violence incriminal justice system to protect the victim


Temida ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alenka Selih

The paper presents the ways of introducing both material and procedural alternative measures into the criminal justice system of Slovenia from the beginning of 1990s, particularly into the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1995 (with the further amendments). That relates to both adult and juvenile offenders. Regarding implementation, the author emphasizes characteristics of the implementation of both groups of institutions; pays attention to the fact that procedural institutions are more important for prosecution of minor criminal offences; points out the importance of the personal factor that contributes to the implementation of new provisions; and gives an overview of the first experiment in the Slovenian judiciary related to that. The author gives an analysis of problems dealt with in the Slovenian doctrine and judicial practice in connection with alternative ways of proceeding; she points out, in particular, the imperfections of legal solutions; the unclear competences in implementation of alternative sanctions and problems resulting from such a situation.


Author(s):  
Emily Gray ◽  
Phil Mike Jones ◽  
Stephen Farrall

One of the first steps Margaret Thatcher’s government took following their election in 1979 was to introduce legislation that enabled sitting council tenants to buy their council homes. This chapter assesses the legacy of this policy on the experiences of homelessness and contact with the criminal justice system of two cohorts of UK citizens. Using longitudinal studies of people born in 1958 and 1970, the authors explore how policies intended to turn council tenants into property owners, may have also increased the risks of homelessness, and contact with the criminal justice system for others as well as subsequent generations. The authors assess how legislative changes can shape the lives of citizens, and highlight some of the unintended consequences of the ‘right to buy’ policy. Our chapter, therefore is essentially about the investigation of the outcomes of radical system deregulation. Our chapter draws upon concepts derived from life-course studies and historical institutionalist thinking in order to understand in-depth how radical policy changes may shape and alter the lives of ordinary citizens.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document