Search

This research aims to explore the concept of judicial forgiveness in criminal law reform and assess justice in criminal judgments from an Islamic law perspective. The research method used is normative legal research focusing on wrongful conviction without punishment in Islamic law and the new Criminal Code (KUHP). The data was collected through a desk study, in which the researcher analyzed various sources such as books, legal regulations, and academic journals. This research contributes significantly by highlighting the importance of judicial forgiveness in criminal law reform, particularly in achieving holistic justice for victims and perpetrators. By emphasizing human values and Islamic principles, this research presents a comprehensive view of how judicial forgiveness can be an alternative to the compensation system. The research findings emphasize that judicial forgiveness is a crucial step in improving the efficiency of the corrections system, reducing prison overcrowding, and restoring the social balance disrupted by crime. The research proposes that a judicial forgiveness approach can reduce reliance on imprisonment as the sole form of punishment, which is often ineffective and unfair, especially in minor crimes.

Victims of crime are integral to and important players in the criminal justice system both as a complainant and as a witness for the prosecution. A victim of crime is a person who sets the criminal justice process in motion. Although the justice system largely counts on the victim, the law of crimes is primarily concerned with the offender and his rights ignoring those of the victim. As the government assumes responsibility of enforcing justice, the victim is left with ineffective remedies. This paper explores that there is no systematic and uniform law defining the status and the rights of victims in the legal system, nor clear guidelines for the criminal justice agencies to deal with and address their grievances. The role of a victim in the current criminal justice process is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution even though he is one who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of his fundament rights as a result of the crime. Consequently, victims are deemed to be an object and employed by criminal justice agencies to advance the prosecution case. The modern State has pushed the victim, who was once entitled to lay charges against the perpetrator, out of the justice process and made him powerless. Such an absence of an important and defined role for victim in prosecuting the offender is often the root of growing discontent among the victims of crime with common-law system of justice and a major source of secondary victimization as well. Victims of crime are persons having rights and privileges. Victims' rights are human rights. Human rights are basic rights which are inherent in a person by virtue of his birth and without which he would not be able to develop to his full potential. A crime is deemed to be an offence against the society and therefore, constitutes a violation of victims' rights as well as an act against the state. The author argues that being an individual with rights and dignity, a victim of crime requires recognition as a person before the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractIn India, the inclusion of victims in the criminal process started slowly with the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code providing for victim compensation from fine imposed on the offender. It has since traversed a patchy path with the major reforms introduced in legislation post recommendations in the Malimath Committee Report and the 2009 Amendment to the Code. The present paper highlights crime victim’s position in the Indian Criminal Justice System tracing the evolutionary development of victim justice in India highlighting its reasons and progress while contrasting with that in the United States of America. It brings to light that victim rights in both common law countries have essentially been a result of social movements having the effect of visible changes in legislation. The paper reviews the literature on victims’ rights in a semi-structured method based on thematic analysis by dividing literature into dominant themes: victims’ informational rights, participation rights, and restitution. The paper concludes that though Indian Supreme Court and Law Commission of India recognise the importance attached to crime victim’s role in the formal process, yet concrete rights for the victim have only been achieved in a limited sense.

The Constitution of India guarantees that justice shall be delivered to all. The duty to ensure that justice delivery is accessible to all is entrusted to state bodies. The legislature is expected to ensure that the legal framework is there, the executive is expected to ensure that all infrastructural needs of the justice delivery system are in place, and the judiciary is expected to ensure that justice is delivered in their area. This paper deals with the issue of delivery of victim justice, with a special focus on compensatory mechanisms laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Code empowers the courts to award compensation to the victim of a crime to ensure his/her rehabilitation. In light of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India that the trial court judges do not exercise their discretionary power under the relevant statutory provisions to award compensation to the victims of a crime, this paper explores the extent of such failure and the reasons behind it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criminal justice system in India traditionally has remained insensitive towards understanding plight of victims. In recent past certain development has taken place to make the victim as focal point of justice dispensation. However, the concept and context of victim or victim justice in itself being evolving, it needs a dynamic and modernized approach especially in India. It also becomes significant to comprehend and appreciate the positive developments taken place in other legal systems in this regard. The exploratory and descriptive paper first deliberates upon the identifying the scope of 'victim' and 'victim justice'. It then comprehensively lists, discusses and analyses the legislative, administrative measures, judicial responses and other framework in India attempting to develop victim sensitive approach and justice dispensation in that framework. The paper then ponders upon the admirable efforts taken up in select legal systems from which Indian justice system may draw some inspiration to address the concerns surrounding victims. The paper finally concludes with certain immediate measures to be adopted in India which would strengthen the victim sensitive and much needed victim-oriented approach in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until 1970s the victims of crime were a forgotten entity in the criminal justice system. The attitude began to change as the discipline of victimology came into its own. The past few decades have witnessed a revolution in the way society deals with victims of crime. Many countries have now recognized the need to provide services to victims to help them recover from the effects of crime and assist them in their dealings with the criminal justice system. But in India, there has not been any significant improvement in the position of victims in the criminal justice system. The present paper has attempted to examine the position of victims of crime in India and the criminal justice system. The paper also emphasizes the need to provide assistance to crime victims. The authors of the present paper have also suggested some of the immediate steps that are to be implemented by the law enforcement agencies in India to improve the position of victims in the criminal justice system. .

Despite years of policy reform in England and Wales, court responses to rape and sexual assault victims remain inadequate. Existing literature often relies on interviews, is outdated by policy, or ignores underlying assumptions. This study therefore observed rape and sexual assault trials, identifying underlying assumptions using critical discourse analysis (CDA). The main themes that arose were routine delays, notions of “rational” behavior, extreme interpretations of “beyond reasonable doubt” (BRD) and “burden of proof,” and winning as priority. These highlight the need to move beyond prioritizing shorter term change and begin addressing the fundamental inadequacies of court responses to rape and sexual assault victims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]