Episode 1
WHO SAYS ALL CONVICTIONS ARE SACROSANCT AND JUSTIFIABLE?
When an error occur in the cause of justice delivery as a result of applying wrong procedure or judgment, “they” say is:.
a) MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
A miscarriage of justice is primarily the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that he or she did not commit.
The term can also be applied to errors in the other direction — "errors of impunity" — and to civil cases, but those usages are rarer, though the occurrences appear to be much more common.
Most criminal justice systems have some means to overturn, or "quash", a wrongful conviction, but this is often difficult to achieve. The most serious instances occur when a wrongful conviction is not overturned for several years, or until after the innocent person has been executed or died in jail.
"Miscarriage of justice" is sometimes synonymous with wrongful conviction, referring to a conviction reached in an unfair or disputed trial. Wrongful convictions are frequently cited by death penalty opponents as cause to eliminate death penalties to avoid executing innocent persons. In recent years DNA evidence has been used to clear many people falsely convicted.
Folks, what have we learnt here? It’s not a fan at all to realize that a lower court judge has wrongful convicted an innocent sole to serve his punishment, but is often difficult to overturn, or "quash", by appeal court.
The question the writer wants to ask you in your comment is why???
Is it that the appeal court judge does not have the mandate to reverse, overturn, or "quash", the verdict? Or he does not want to expose his lower court judge? Or because in some case it is not sufficient to compensate the wrongfully judged especially when the person is dead already? There are more questions than answers…
b) Justismord - "justice murder".
Justismord, which is literally translated “justice murder". The term originally used for cases where the accused was convicted, executed and later cleared after death. With capital punishment decreasing, the expression has acquired an extended meaning, namely any conviction of a person of a crime he/she did not commit. The retention of the term "murder" both demonstrates universal abhorrence against wrongful convictions and awareness of how destructive wrongful convictions are.
Even when a person has been sentence to death and has been subsequently killed for wrongful convictions they still protect themselves by calling it "justice murder". Lord have mercy!
c) Mistake of law
Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or more errors that were made by a person in understanding how the applicable law applied to their past activity that is under analysis by a court.
d) Mistake of fact.
Mistake of fact as a legal term of art, it is primarily applicable to civil law. In criminal cases a mistake of fact is normally called simply, "mistake". In criminal cases, a mistake of applicable law is not a recognized defense, though such a mistake may in very rare instances fall under the legal category of "exculpation".
Here, what mistake are we talking about and who have committed that mistake?
If a prosecutor in the cause of presenting a case makes a mistake is called simply, "mistake". But if a defendant makes a mistake of fact in the course of his submissions, its use against him during trial. Again if a trial judge mistake by not applying the appropriate law that error is not a recognized defense, on a more serious note they give it nicely decorated terminology call exculpation.
e) One deadly myth is "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
The long standing principle of public policy says that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Generally, in legal cases there is an irrebuttable presumption that people who are about to engage in an activity will comply with applicable law.
All states are required to publish the law and make it reasonably available to the public. The presumption of knowledge of applicable law generally will also apply in the situation of a recent change in the law, with which a party in a legal case had no opportunity to become aware of it,
e.g. the accused was out hunting in the wilderness and did not know that the law changed to protect an endangered species.
Some states make a distinction between a mistake as to the substance and effect of existing laws, and a mistake that the law creates a specific right to act in the particular way. Suppose, for example, that A, the owner of a vehicle, takes it into a garage for repair. When returning to collect it, “A” finds that the vehicle has been left parked in the street. If he has an honest belief that he has the right as an owner to retake possession of the vehicle without paying the outstanding bill for the repairs, he will not be considered as stealing it despite the fact that the garage holds a lien over the vehicle and so has the better right to possession until the bill is paid.
This form of the defense is difficult to prove because the defendant must be able to prove that he believed in something more positive than the law permitted the particular behavior.
The belief must be that the law creates and vests a specific right to act in that way. In English law, a limited form of statutory offense is termed "claim of right".
Under the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971, a defense will arise if the defendant honestly believes that he is entitled to act in the way he did and this will negate the relevant mens rea element (e.g. of dishonesty under s2 Theft Act 1968).
In Chamberlain v Lindon 1998 Lindon demolished a wall to protect a right-of-way, despite allowing nine months to pass before acting, Lindon honestly believed that it was immediately necessary to protect his legal rights without having to resort to civil litigation. For the purposes of s5 (2):
It is not necessary to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law. For the purpose of the criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable, i.e. a subjective test.
Thus a "lawful excuse" may be acknowledged by a court to arise when a person honestly but mistakenly believes that the actions are necessary and reasonable.
What have we learnt from here, it’s not what you think or believe is right that will set you free but what the law says.
However, all states are required to publish the law and make it reasonably available to the public. Have they done that?
Don’t you think it’s necessary to know little about the law but not necessarily becoming a lawyer?
You are kindly requested to access the next episode soonest and to read more about such legal myths.
Beside, your comment is welcome to make this site reader friendly and purposeful.
Watch out for the publication of “Basic Law For The Living” at the same site come soonest
Technorati Tags:
wrongful conviction,
errors of impunity,
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE,
unfair or disputed trial,
death penalty,
DNA evidence,
overturn or quash,
justice murder,
Mistake of law,
Mistake of fact,
exculpation,
ignorance of the law,
public policy,
irrebuttable presumption,
better right to possession,
specific right,
lien,
claim of right,
statutory offense,
dishonesty,
right-of-way
