Case construction FINAL

The concept of case construction helps one to understand the idea of social and legal procedures through which incidents are exposed to before they can finally be reported as cases. It is therefore good to note that, the cases which are studied in the criminal law often presents a small proportion of activities which are criminal in nature, and those which have taken place in the process of case construction[1].  The statistics in the criminal section is what helps to measure the extent of a criminal act and the notion of the weight a certain criminal act may constitute.

While considering the process of case construction, the discretion of the police is highly recognized as a framework which helps in crime investigation[2], and a special attention put on how the police puts a suspect under their custody and how this particularly influence evidence production.

We also have pre- trial processes that are carried out in the case construction, for instance, the bail requirement, making decision on the prosecution, how materials are going to be adduced in by the prosecution, how defense is going to be done and finally the bargaining of the charge.  The description of the trial is then done, and various courts are put into consideration, the availability of legal personnel, and finally decisions are made. for anyone who is not satisfied with the decision, there is the option to appeal[3].

Looking at the case construction therefore we can say that crime in itself never exists as an objective in reality, people first discover the crime and then it is dealt with.  A crime is a legal as well as a social construction, it is also a product of many processes, from whether a person who can be a future witness considers if an act is criminal and if it  is worth to be reported, to the corporation of the police, to the potential of those who prepare the defense, to the decisions made by a court of law, and lastly as to whether the alleged criminal is satisfied with the case or decides to appeal.

It is therefore a consideration of all these processes in the case construction that have affected the high-profile miscarriage of justice either in positive or negative sense. Using a case of Mumbai judiciary system, the fact that there is a lot of corruption in the judiciary system is one of the major problems hindering the implementation of the justice system[4].

The poor majority who cannot afford the services of the lawyers, end up rotting in jails for many years for petty crimes and their cases are piled up in courts for many years.  The rich on the other side always buy their way out of the court system.  Witnesses have been bought in most cases, evidence has been hidden and cases weakened.

The prosecutor being a vital player in the area of law has two major goals to achieve, one is to ensure that there should never be an escape by the guilty, and the other one is to protect the innocent and ensure that they do not suffer[5].  A prosecutor is therefore required to be very careful to avoid a conviction that is wrong as well as ensuring that the process he uses is  a legal one as ruled in the case of Bello vs. United States, 295 U.S. 75, 89 (1960)

Most prosecutors however are involved in misconduct acts which often distort the process of finding facts resulting to miscarriage of justice ending up with the innocent being convicted[6].  There have been cases where prosecutors misuse their powers and make inconsistent arguments in successive cases.

Some of the sordid cases experienced is the arguing and presentation of evidence that is not true to the juries, as presented in the case of Miller v. Thomas, U.S. 2 (1966) where a prosecutor made a description of a painted underwear as bloody shorts, even though he knew the stain was not a blood stain but mere paint.  He also presented witnesses who were to exaggerate evidence and at the same time he limited the time required by the defense side and also withheld the evidence he had in support of the defendants.

The prosecutors form of misconducts have been in different forms, and these acts have contributed to the high-profile level in the miscarriage of justice[7].  Another misconduct that has been troubling the justice system in the past years is the prosecution practice which involves the use of fact-based irreconcilable arguments to convict several defenders in successive trials.

There are however mechanics put in place to restrict the ability of the prosecutors when making inconsistent debates in trials which are successive.  A good demonstration of this is the two cases, The United States v. Salerno, 924 F.4d 1354 (4d Cir. 1993),  and United Kingdom v. GAF, 625 F.2d 1243 (2d cir. 1993) the evidence adduced for purposes of convicting the defenders had been used earlier on alleging fraudulent exchange by use of manipulative means.

In places where the police are poorly paid, they have even converted bribes to be a legitimate way of getting money.  The police being one of the key players in the process have contributed to a lot in the miscarriage of justice.  Being the custodians of the suspected culprits they often accept to be corrupted[8] by the people they are investigating and the result is that the evidence they produce in such a case may be defective and incriminating on the innocent person.

The process of case construction is too long and this in most cases leads to delay of justice[9]. Justice delay amounts to justice denial, because when a person who has suffered from criminal acts of another and fails or is delayed from getting the remedies which are supposed to take them back to their normal lives, this in effect does not portray the true picture of what justice is supposed to be.

Using a case of Mumbai judiciary system, the fact that that there is a lot of corruption in the judiciary system is one of the major factors hindering the implementation of the justice system[10].  The poor majority who cannot afford the services of the lawyers end up rotting in jails for many years for petty crimes and their cases are piled up in courts for many years.  The rich on the other side always buy out their way out of the court system[11].  Witnesses have been bought in most cases, evidence has been hidden and cases weakened.

From the foregoing above, there is great need to put mechanics that will enable clear checks and balance in the justice system.  Some of the opinions advance is that the media can be an effective tool to express the public cry as well as bringing into light the corrupt acts done behind the judiciary curtains[12].  Corruption in the judiciary system has been made to appear as if it is part and parcel of the system itself.  If the judiciary can be streamlined and corruption done way with, then we can have a good construction case system that would help to limit the high-level injustices that are experienced the world over.

Bibliography:

Anders, B., (1996).  Testimonies, Speeches and Experiences in the Miscarriage of Justice. New York, Routledge Press.

Anneurin, J., (2004).  Culture, Justice, and the Law:  The Administrative and Constitutional Law:  Glasgow:  West Company Publishers

Carter, J., (2005).  The Social Contracts and the Justice System.  Toronto:  Sidney University publishers.

Desty, R., (2000).  Report from the Supreme Court.  Glasgow:  West Company Publishers.

Hall, S., (2008).  Criminology in the British Journal.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press

Kent, R., (2000).  The War Against Miscarriage of Justice in Terrorism.  Toronto:  University of Toronto press.

Mews, J., (2003). The English Law Case Digest:  The Case Process and Decision Making by the Superior Court.  Britain:  Sweet and Maxwell.

Richard, J., (200).  Miscarriage of Justice Understanding:  The Media, Law, and the issue of Inevitability. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ryrie, B., (2005).  The Rule of The Law, Human Rights, and the Traditions Constructions: The Relationship in Russia's Economy.  Chicago:  Moody press.

Bronwyn, S., (2004).  Cultural Relativism and The Law in France:  Dislocation of Culture by the Law.  Chicago:  Chicago University press.

[1]             . Anders, B., (1996).  Testimonies, Speeches and Experiences in the Miscarriage of Justice. New York, Routledge press. p. 56 [2]          . Desty, R., (2000). Report from the Supreme Court.  Glasgow: West Company Publishers.  pp. 76-72 [3]             . Anneurin, J., (2004).  Culture, Justice, and The Law:  The Administrative and Constitutional Law:  Glasgow:  West Company press. p. 16. [4]          . Kent, R., (2000).  The War Against Miscarriage of Justice in Terrorism.  Toronto:  University of Toronto press. pp. 76-42 [5]          . Richard, J., (200). Miscarriage of Justice Understanding:  The Media, Law, and the issue of Inevitability. Oxford: Oxford press. p. 52 [6]          . Ryrie, B., (2005). The Rule of The Law, Human Rights, and the Traditions Constructions: The Relationship in Russia's Economy.  Chicago:  Moody press. pp. 42-29. [7]          . Hall, S., (2008).  Criminology in the British Journal. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. p. 72 [8]             . Desty, R., (2000). Report from the Supreme Court.  Glasgow: West Company Publishers.. pp. 76-72 [9]          .Mews, J., (2003). The English Law Case Digest:  The Case Process and Decision Making by the Superior Court. Britain:  Sweet and Maxwell. p. 14 [10]        . Carter, J., (2005). The Social Contracts and the Justice System. Toronto:  Sidney University publishers. pp. 16-8 [11]        . Hall, S., (2008).  Criminology in the British Journal. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. p. 72 [12]        . Richard, J., (200). Miscarriage of Justice Understanding:  The Media, Law, and the issue of Inevitability. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 52