scholarly journals Realization of Due Process of Law in the Activities of the Special Judicial Police: Focusing on the Miranda Warnings Manual

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
박현준
2021 ◽  
pp. 251660692199175
Author(s):  
Devansh Dubey ◽  
Payas Jain

The right to fair trial is inherent in the concept of due process of law, which now forms part of Article 21 of Indian Constitution after the Maneka Gandhi judgement. Pertinently attached with the same comes the responsibility of the criminal system to treat victims with increased awareness and sensitivity. However, the established convention shows that in planning and developing administration of criminal justice, proper attention is not given to the victims of crime in achieving goals of criminal justice; the major cause of it being that a victim is heard only as a witness not as a victim. A credible response to the said issue has emerged in the form of victim impact statement (VIS) in the modern legal system across the world. With that being said, the researchers through this article try to deduce the need for incorporating a VIS in India through the various jurisprudential understandings of what it means to be a victim, including the gap between the subjective experience of the sufferer and the interpretation of the same by others, and what restorative justice would mean to heal a victim. Establishing upon the same premise of victim status, the researchers try to suggest that the introduction of VIS, with the primary purpose of it being a therapeutic tool and not an instrument of changing the course of justice, will serve to make us reconsider our contours of a ‘victim’.


2011 ◽  
pp. 786-788
Author(s):  
Roger J. R. Levesque

2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 297-319
Author(s):  
Rudi Sudirdja

In Indonesia, the provision of in absentia in the Money Laundering Crime Law raises problems if the crime act is originally conventional crime act. Conventional crime act should be handled based on the provisions of the Indonesian Criminal Law Procedures Code. On the one hand, the Money Laundering Crime Law regulates the provisions of the court in absentia and, on the other hand, the Indonesian Criminal Law Procedures Code does not recognize trial in absentia. This study covers the issue. To be precise, it reveals the possibility of a conventional crime act that is charged with the Money Laundering Crime Law to be tried in absentia based on the principle of formal legality. In addition, it discusses the strategy of prosecution of money laundering crime act in trial in absentia for cases that are originally conventional crime act based on the principle of due process of law. This study used analytical description research specifications and the normative juridical method. The data was collected through a document study. In accordance with the approaches, the data were analyzed in qualitative-juridical manners. This study concludes several points. The first, based on the principle of legality of formal law, the implementation of trial in absentia against general criminal acts cannot be carried out. The second, based on the principle of due process of law, the prosecution strategy in trial in absentia fur such cases are that (1) the prosecution of money laundering crime and original crime must be done separately; (2) the public prosecutor must delay the transfer of original criminal acts to the court until the accused is found and presented; (3) the indictment must be prepared in a single form; (4) the indictment must draw legal facts about the original crime; and (5) the public prosecutor can prove the legal facts about the original crime in the element of ‘assets resulting from the crime’ in the money laundering offense.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-474
Author(s):  
Priyo Handoko

The study aims to provide a constitutional analysis of judicial review (PK) in civil cases for more than once. The research-based is the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 in which the two judgments provide a different classification between criminal and civil cases. The method used in this research is a normative juridical with a conceptual, legislation, and case approach. The results of the study assert that: first, the opportunity for judicial review (PK) more than once in a criminal case is an effort to uphold justice substantively by the Constitutional Court. Whereas the restriction of judicial review (PK) only once in civil cases is intended to guarantee legal certainty. Secondly, there is rational inconsistency in the arguments of the Constitutional Court which is indicated in Decision No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013. Both criminal and civil cases must seek to establish and maintain substantial justice, especially since there is a due process of law principle that requires that everyone can get the same opportunity before the law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document