The public prosecutor, its role, duties and powers in the pre-trial stage of the criminal justice process ? a comparative study of the french and the swedish legal systems ?

Article 66 paragraph (1) Act Number 2 of 2014 essentially regulates the consent of the Notary Honorary Council in the criminal justice process. The provisions in the a quo article have been still being applied and become a positive law in Indonesia. One of the criminal justice process in the notarial field relates to the criminal act of revelation of secrets as regulated in Article number 322 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. The consent given by the Notary Honorary Council as outlined above can certainly be viewed in the context of criminal law.The research is a normative legal research using secondary data of both primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The data collecting technique used is documentary study with written materials as the data collection tool to be analyzed qualitatively using content analysis.The research result showed that in the context of criminal law, basically a notary who provides a copy of the deed and/or documents attached to the minuta deed or notarial protocol in the notarial archives for the purpose of the investigator, the public prosecutor or the judge has committed a criminal act of revelation of secrets as stipulated in Article number 322 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. However, the notary is not necessarily criminally liable considering the consent of the Notary Honorary Council as the grounds of impunity. Keywords: Notary Honorary Council consent, grounds of impunity, criminal act of revelation of secrets.

Download Full-text

Reparation and Criminal Justice: Can they be Integrated?

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700015120 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 30 (3-4) ◽

pp. 316-330 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Susanne Walther

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

The State ◽

Sufficient Evidence ◽

Criminal Courts ◽

The Public ◽

Private Interests ◽

Justice Process ◽

Criminal Justice Process ◽

The Right ◽

Civil Courts

The role of the victim within the public criminal justice process has traditionally been one of supporting public prosecution. Without the victim's cooperation, police and prosecutors would neither be informed about the occurrence of crimes, nor be able to bring sufficient evidence to secure convictions or extra-judicial settlements. In Germany, for instance, about 90% of all prosecutions are initiated by private complaint.Compared to what the victim gives the state, the state traditionally gives little to the victim. While the victim's procedural position has been strengthened in Germany in recent decades, namely by the expansion of the right to join the prosecution as a collateral complainant, procedural participation alone has not been sufficient to satisfy the victim's need to be made whole. Victimological research indicates that the victim has a profound interest in compensation of damages. However, since according to our traditional understanding, the victim's claims and the State's claims against the offender are inherently different in nature, they ought to be governed by different types of principles and proceedings. Doctrinally, the criminal courts settle the State's conflict with the offender, while the victim's conflict with the offender is a matter for the civil law and the civil courts. Therefore, the legal consequences of crime, it is believed, reflect primarily the needs of the general public and not the “private” interests of the victim (whether defined as to receive: compensation; reparation; satisfaction; vindication).

Download Full-text

Eliciting Best Evidence from a Child Witness: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and India

Issues in Legal Scholarship ◽

10.1515/ils-2019-0003 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Charanjit Singh

Keyword(s):

United Kingdom ◽

Criminal Justice ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Justice System ◽

Case Law ◽

Child Witness ◽

Criminal Offence ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

Justice Process ◽

Criminal Justice Process

Abstract The successful prosecution of any criminal offence relies on evidence that proves its commission. Although the admissibility of evidence is key at first instance, the weight attached to a piece of evidence i.e. how “reliable” or “persuasive” it is will tilt the scale of justice in one or another direction. The problems with various forms of evidence i.e. that elicited from an eye or ear-witness has been thoroughly explored by academics and lawyers alike. Those same problems are potentially exacerbated where the witness is a child who has not only witnessed a gruesome crime but is required to give evidence in a forum (court) that is accompanied by intimidating surroundings. Whilst witness evidence, regardless of whether it is given by an adult or child, is a factual part of criminal justice, it is salient to note that the entire process has been made more witness-friendly in some commonwealth jurisdictions. This article explores the differences in the rules designed on eliciting best evidence from a child witness in the United Kingdom and India. In so doing, the case law from each jurisdiction is contrasted. There are two aims of the article, the first is to facilitate a conversation where one criminal justice system may learn from another’s experience. The second, a result of the first, is to make suggestions on improving the experience of a child witness in the Indian Criminal Justice Process.

Download Full-text

Automation of American Criminal Justice

Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, First Edition ◽

10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5.ch037 ◽

2005 ◽

pp. 197-199

Author(s):

J. William Holland

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

Criminal Justice System ◽

Justice System ◽

Information Needs ◽

Task Force ◽

Free Society ◽

Public And Private ◽

The Public ◽

Justice Process ◽

Criminal Justice Process

Criminal Justice has been one of the public sectors in the forefront of the move toward automation and digital government. The effect of computerization on American criminal justice has been profound and it has transformed the criminal justice process in many fundamental ways. Starting with President Lyndon Johnson’s government commission, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: A Report by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, public and private experts in criminal justice and technology laid out the information needs of the criminal justice system and the computer systems to meet those demands. At a time when computerization was minimal throughout the criminal justice system, these task force members developed the blueprint for today’s multilayered automated criminal justice environment (Dallek, 1998, pp. 405-407, 409-411; Challenge of crime in a free society, 1967, pp. 268-271).

Download Full-text

PERWUJUDAN KEADILAN RESTORATIF DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK MELALUI DIVERSI

10.31219/osf.io/snd3c ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Kristina Agustiani Sianturi

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

Restorative Justice ◽

Justice System ◽

The Other ◽

Public Prosecutor ◽

Juvenile Deliquency ◽

Justice Process ◽

Criminal Justice Process ◽

The Law ◽

And Training

Every year, children in conflict with the law increases so it is needed to handle an alternative in the way to enforce restorative justice. Bill Number 11 0f 2012 concerning Juvinele Justice System which is accomodated to handle Juvenile Deliquency for diversion. This regulation defines diversion is the transfer of the settlement of the child to the criminal justice process outside the criminal justice process. Diversion obligates to be done by officers started from police investigator, public prosecutor until judge. The important of handling of diversion process for children in conflict with the law needed a commitment for every single officers to apply diversion process. On the other hand, education and training should be given to every officers especially police investigator, public prosecutor even judge relates handling children in conflict with the law.

Download Full-text

The Agreement of Uncontroversial Evidence and the Presumption of Innocence: An Insoluble Dilemma?

Edinburgh Law Review ◽

10.3366/elr.2002.6.1.25 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 25-45 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Peter Duff

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

Criminal Trial ◽

Presumption Of Innocence ◽

Justice Process ◽

Criminal Justice Process ◽

The Creation ◽

The Relationship

On 1 April 1996, a rather odd provision was introduced into the Scottish criminal justice process, namely a duty on both prosecution and defence to try to agree uncontroversial evidence in advance of criminal trial.1 As far as the writer is aware, such a provision is unique, although the philosophy underlying its introduction is not totally alien to inquisitorial systems of criminal justice.2 What is particularly peculiar about this duty is that there is no sanction for a failure, however unreasonable, to agree uncontroversial evidence.3 The lack of a sanction resulted from a concern that the creation of any penalty would impinge unjustifiably upon the rights of the accused. The intention in this article is to explore in detail the relationship between the duty to agree uncontroversial evidence and the position of the accused, and to suggest that the imposition of a sanction for a breach of this duty is not as problematic as was thought by those responsible for the legislation.

Download Full-text