Thursday 13 August 2020

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS – AN UNRELIABLE SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE By Neha Garg


 "The annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification."

—The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Anderson (1973)

Nowadays the term ‘innocent before proven guilty’ has swapped to ‘guilty before proven innocent’.“Wrongful conviction,” expressed as the convictions of literally innocent persons that ignore persons who have committed the act and men rea of crimes but whose convictions were obtained in violation of constitutional or other procedural rights in a manner not reckoned as harmless error by appellate courts. The dearth of accountability of police and prosecutors, reliance on junk science and deceptive eyewitnesses, and the penniless defence crisis are major contributors to wrongful convictions that have undermined the integrity of our system and ruined the lives of innocent men and women this is nothing but a miscarriage of justice.

The reasons behind this wrong are seldom Bad Lawyering i.e. The failure of hackneyed lawyers to investigate, call witnesses, or prepare for trial has piloted to the conviction of innocent people.  Eyewitness Misidentification i.e. the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions universally. Research shows that the human mind is not like a video camera; we neither record incidents exactly as we see, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be well-looked-after carefully and recouped logically, or it can be polluted. Junk Science Countless forensic testing methods have been applied with little or no scientific justification and with inadequate calculations of their reliability. As a result, forensic analysts sometimes testify in cases without a proper scientific basis for their findings and the worst forensic analysts get affianced in misconduct.FalseConfessions as innocent suspects make impeaching statements, deliver utter revelations, or plead guilty. Notwithstanding the age, capacity, or state of mind of the confessor, what they often have mutually is a decision that at some point during the cross-examination process that confessing will be more beneficial to them than continuing to uphold their incorruptibility. Government Misconduct: the government representatives take steps to ensure that a suspect is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear impermeable innocence. Snitches statements from people with spurs to testify i.e. mostly incentives that are not divulged to the jury are the dominant evidence in convicting an acquitted person. People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which snitches are paid to testify or obtain favours in return for their testimony.

Countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc. have enacted a statutory right to compensation, but it is limited to wrongful conviction by the righteousness of a final order, after all, appeals have been dog-tired and a new fact, which then leads decisively that the convicted person was precisely innocent. In its 277th report titled “Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies” (August 2018), This Report was predominantly based on a reference made by the High Court of Delhi, the case of Babloo Chauhan v State Government of NCT Delhi[1], has rightly pointed that the practices in other countries would be derisory to address the complete shortfalls of the criminal justice system in India, where individuals have spent several years in imprisonment even erstwhile to a conviction.

The major problem the victims suffer is their Right to compensation. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under article 14(6), the consigner is required to take actions to ensure the right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment and incarceration. While India had stated reservations while ratifying the ICCPR that the Indian legal system does not comprehend the right to compensation for victims of unlawful arrest and detention, the jurisprudence created by the Supreme Court of India has made this reservation outmoded.

In case of Nambi Narayan[2], the Supreme Court stipulated a compensation of 50 lakhs to former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan, 24 years after he was illegally detained on the indictment of leaking official secrets to a spy racket.The fact that the payment of compensation was ordered 24 years after the wrongful arrest is a stern reminder of the need to correct wrongs caused by illicit arrests timely and preserve freedom. This calls for legitimate recognition of the Right to compensation in cases of wrongful arrests and imprisonment, which the victims of such indictments can avail without waiting for several years of process before the courts.

The remedies available in India against this evil Public Law remedies are available in the form of petitions under Article 32 before the Supreme Court or under Article 226 before the respective High Court under the Constitution of India but, the main drawback is how to calculate the compensation.Private Law Remedy, a claim for compensation for wrongful acts done by interventions of the State are often pursued before Civil Courts which forms part of the Civil law remedy available to the accused.Criminal Law Remedy in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) makes punishable offences involving fabrication of records, of perjury, illegal confinement and commitment to trial of innocent persons by a police officer and Section 211 IPC is of worth as it penalises institution of false criminal proceedings or falsely charging a person of a crime. This section is made pertinent to all persons including public servants as well.

Many times, victims don’t approach the supreme court directly for prevailing justice and compensation as a result of lack of financial resources and information. A legitimate right of compensation should be provided to the victims to live a decent life which they have lost by the fault of no other but the justice system itself.

 




[1]BABLOO CHAUHAN @ DABLOO Vs.STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI CRL.A.-157/2013(Delhi High Court, 30/11/2017)

No comments:

Post a Comment