Administration of Justice Essay Example
Administration of Justice Essay Example

Administration of Justice Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
Topics:
  • Pages: 10 (2581 words)
  • Published: December 13, 2017
  • Type: Case Study
View Entire Sample
Text preview

The administration of Justice, which encompasses the use of physical force by the state to maintain justice within a political community, is divided into civil and criminal sectors. The state's tribunals employ various approaches to uphold rightful regulations.

The justice system serves two primary purposes: enforcing rights and punishing wrongs. It holds the power to compel individuals to meet their obligations or face legal consequences. When someone is unable to confront those who have harmed them, seeking help from the Justice becomes necessary. In a civil proceeding, the plaintiff asserts their rights while the court ensures they are upheld by pressuring the defendant to comply. This can involve situations where an individual seeks repayment of owed money, recovery of wrongfully withheld property, compensation for inflicted harm, or prevention of future harm through an injunction.

ign="justify">
During a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor accuses the defendant of wrongdoing instead of asserting a right. The court's objective is not to enforce duties or uphold rights, but rather to punish the defendant for neglecting their duty and violating rights. For instance, murder could result in hanging while theft may lead to imprisonment. In both civil and criminal proceedings, there is an allegation of wrongdoing, whether it is present or imminent.

The law is applicable solely to individuals who have already breached it or demonstrated the desire to do so. Justice is exclusively served to those who have engaged in wrongdoing either through their actions or intentions. However, there is a significant distinction between civil and criminal cases. In civil justice, the emphasis lies in asserting a right, whereas criminal justice revolves around an accusation of misconduct. Civil justice focuses

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

on the plaintiff and their rights, whereas criminal justice centers on the defendant and their offenses.

The plaintiff is eligible for compensation, while the defendant receives appropriate punishment. A civil wrong pertains to wrongdoing in civil proceedings, whereas a criminal wrong or crime refers to wrongdoing in criminal proceedings. Liability arises when someone has committed or threatened misconduct and may face legal consequences, whether they are of a civil or criminal nature. The same act can be classified as both a civil injury and a crime, allowing for the application of both legal remedies.

It is reasonable to argue that the law should require men to fulfill their neglected obligations and use punishment as a deterrent against future misconduct. For instance, a thief should not only be required to return what was stolen but also be imprisoned for stealing in order to discourage both the culprit and others from repeating such acts. Nonetheless, there are exceptions where duplicating remedies is unnecessary. In situations where enforcement is impossible due to circumstances, punishment becomes the sole solution. Similarly, in other cases, enforcement serves as the only measure for preventing future wrongdoing.

The defendant may be responsible for the expenses of the proceedings. Moreover, the civil remedy often incorporates a punitive element that renders criminal liability unnecessary. A criminal proceeding seeks to penalize the defendant for an offense, whereas a civil proceeding seeks to uphold a right held by the plaintiff. We will also explore another widely accepted explanation.

The difference between crimes and civil injuries can be compared to the distinction between public and private wrongs. A public wrong refers to an offense committed against the state

or community as a whole, which is addressed in a legal proceeding involving the state. Conversely, a private wrong involves an offense committed against an individual, which is resolved through legal action initiated by the injured party. For instance, while the thief faces criminal prosecution by the Crown, the trespasser encounters a civil lawsuit filed by the person whose rights were infringed upon.

The text states that criminal libel is considered a public offense and prosecuted by the Crown, while civil libel is viewed as a private offense and addressed through a lawsuit for monetary damages initiated by the defamed person. However, this explanation is insufficient because not all public offenses are classified as crimes. For instance, failing to pay taxes is an offense against the state and prosecuted by the state but remains categorized as a civil wrongdoing. Likewise, neglecting to repay borrowed money from an individual also falls under the category of civil wrongdoing.

The violation of a contract made with the government is not viewed as more criminal compared to breaking a contract with an individual. Legal action taken by the government to recoup debt, seek compensation, reclaim public property, or enforce a public trust is considered purely civil. Nevertheless, in these instances, the state initiates the lawsuit as the victim. Conversely, not all crimes are considered public offenses. Numerous offenses that can be swiftly punished may be prosecuted by a private individual; however, these proceedings remain criminal in nature.

The divisions between public and private wrongs and crimes and civil injuries are not coincident but intersecting divisions. Public rights are frequently enforced, while private wrongs are often punished. The definition of

law itself reflects the significance of justice, as the court in a state must carry out the administration of justice. Both Rose Pound and Salmons have different focuses on this matter. While Rose Pound emphasizes courts more, Salmons places greater emphasis on the state. Maintaining justice is crucial for the functioning of the state, including during times of war; if a state cannot perform these functions, it cannot be considered a true state. According to Salmons, maintaining rights within a political community through the physical force of the state is an essential part of administering justice. However, even in an orderly society, force is always present and operational, though it may not be immediately apparent. Social sanction alone is inadequate and must be supplemented by the concentrated and irresistible force of the community. It should be noted that social sanction cannot replace the physical force exerted by the state; therefore, both forms play pivotal roles in ensuring justice.

The social aspect of individuals leads to a desire for communal living, resulting in the need for society and causing conflicts. These conflicts gave birth to the establishment of Justice, which has a history and growth. In its initial stages, the state lacked sufficient power to enforce laws and punish wrongdoers, leading to prevalence of private revenge and self-help. However, as the state's authority increased, it took on the role of a Judge by determining liability and imposing penalties. As the political state grows stronger, Justice naturally accompanies this development. Legal Justice possesses both advantages and disadvantages. Its benefits include consistency and predictability since decisions must adhere to stated laws, allowing people to shape their behavior accordingly.

The law applies equally to all individuals, ensuring fairness in administering Justice. According to Coke's perspective, the wisdom of the law surpasses that possessed by any individual.

The concept of justice encompasses both legal justice and public justice, serving as a representation of societal wisdom. However, legal justice is constrained by its rigidity and struggle to adapt to rapid societal changes. Furthermore, it becomes intricate due to the complexity of our society, necessitating complex laws to cater to the diverse needs of society. According to Salmons, while law offers a solution for significant wrongs, it also possesses its own imperfections. Moreover, justice can be categorized into two forms: public justice administered by the state on behalf of the community and private justice concerning justice between individuals.
+

The court functions as a means to prevent private individuals from enforcing the law themselves, thus upholding ethical justice between individuals. Additionally, public justice is carried out by the state through its own tribunals and pertains to the interaction between courts and individuals. Public justice serves as a way for courts to fulfill the requirement for private justice. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the justice administered by the court might not be seen as genuine justice since it always aligns with the law.

Judges play the role of interpreting rather than making laws. Their duty is not to fix flaws in legislation but solely to enforce the country's legal system. Therefore, in a modern state, administering justice in accordance with established rules becomes essential. Although civil and criminal justice are both important, they have separate legal implications. Civil cases are handled by specific courts while criminal cases are

overseen by a different judicial body.

Civil proceedings can lead to outcomes such as a Judgment for damages, injunctions, restitution, specific decrees, or other forms of relief. These outcomes are categorized as civil. In contrast, successful criminal proceedings can result in various forms of punishment including hanging, fines, or probationary release. Consequently, it is asserted that the primary goal of criminal proceedings is punishment while civil proceedings generally aim to resolve issues without punitive measures. The distinction between criminal and civil wrongs is not completely defined; typically crimes are viewed as offenses against the public whereas offenses against individuals constitute civil wrongs.

The Indian Penal Code does not have a specific definition for crimes. Offenses against the public and the State, such as tax evasion, are not classified as criminal offenses. However, crimes against individuals, like murder, are considered to be criminal in nature. Certain acts, such as defamation, can be both civil wrongs and criminal offenses. According to Austin's perspective, a crime is seen as a wrongdoing committed by the sovereign or their representatives while a civil injury is viewed as a wrongdoing pursued by the injured party and their representative.

The text explains that the term 'offence' is defined as something punishable under Section 40 of the Code. Scholars have offered varying definitions of 'crime'. Initially, Blackstone defined crime as an act that goes against a public law, either by committing or omitting it. Later on, he revised his definition to describe crime as a violation of public rights and duties towards the entire community. James Stephen further refined this definition by stating that crime is a violation that impacts the community as

a whole.

Crime is defined by different scholars in various ways. According to John Killing, crime is an act that is proven to be harmful to society or perceived as socially harmful by a powerful group that has the authority to enforce its beliefs and impose penalties. On the other hand, Russell defines criminal offenses as the result of a criminal policy created by sections of the community who hold enough power to protect their own safety and well-being through sovereign power. Some scholars simply define crime by listing its characteristics.

According to Edwin Sutherland's definition, crime refers to a set of specific rules governing human behavior that is established by political authority and applies to all individuals. On the other hand, Rose Pound argues that defining crime is an impossible task due to the dynamic nature of law. She explains that the law can be influenced by both sovereign will and juristic science, allowing for variation in its application. Additionally, the level of specificity in law can vary over time, sometimes providing clear guidelines and at other times leaving room for judicial discretion.

The concept of punishment in criminal law encompasses various forms of pain, penalty, suffering, or confinement imposed on individuals for committing crimes or offenses, or neglecting legal duties. Its purposes include deterrence. Salmons emphasizes the importance of the deterrent aspect, which aims to discourage offenders from repeating their actions and serve as a warning to others with criminal tendencies.

The purpose of this theory is not to seek revenge but to instill terror. According to this theory, a criminal should receive a punishment that serves as an example for others to

learn from. This theory is even mentioned in Manuscript. It states that "Penalty keeps the people under control, penalty protects them, and penalty remains awake when people are asleep, so the wise have regarded punishment as the source of righteousness." Critics argue that it is not an effective deterrent against crime. The Preventive Theory's aim is to prevent or disable individuals from committing future crimes.

The theory of deterrence emphasizes the importance of warning society as a whole, while the Preventive Theory aims to prevent wrongdoers from repeating their actions by removing their ability to commit crimes. Despite criminals retaining their humanity, they may have acted in situations that are unlikely to happen again. The goal of punishment should be to morally rehabilitate the offender. Consequently, certain guidelines are provided in order to accomplish this objective.

Judges must consider multiple factors when deciding punishments, such as the offender's characteristics and upbringing, age, circumstances, and intent of the offense. This analysis is essential for Judges to understand the situation fully and impose an appropriate penalty. Supporters argue that treating offenders with sympathy, tact, and care can potentially lead to a transformation in their character. However, there are opposing views from critics.

The Deterrent Theory and the Reformative Theory have differing perspectives on punishment. The Deterrent Theory believes that punishment should deter others from committing crimes, while the Reformative Theory focuses on reforming convicts with minimal punishment. However, a compromise between these theories is necessary. According to the Deterrent Theory, punishment should be based on the nature of the crime without considering individual circumstances. On the other hand, the Reformative Theory argues that severe punishment leaves no

opportunity for reform. It emphasizes considering the circumstances of offense and providing opportunities for future improvement for criminals. In early societies, there was a prevailing Retributive Theory where revenge was sought against wrongdoers based on "an eye for an eye" principle.

The retributive theory states that criminals should be punished in relation to their offense, without considering any advantages to society or the victim. Conversely, others argue that punishment should also serve to compensate the victim rather than solely prevent future crimes. However, critics contend that this method is not effective in deterring crime since criminal motives are not always financially driven. Although imposing fines may benefit the victim, it does not guarantee a decrease in crime rates.

According to this theory, individuals who have suffered from government wrongdoing receive compensation. Capital punishment has been a long-standing form of punishment since ancient times and is still prescribed by our legal system. However, several countries have abolished it, and this ideology has influenced the Indian Judiciary's approach to capital punishment. Judges have become more lenient in awarding this punishment. In the case of Arguable Sings v. State of Harlan, the Supreme Court recognized the treacherous nature of the murder but still opted for life imprisonment instead. Deportation or transportation, which was a punishment during British rule, involved isolating the criminal in a different society. Critics argue that the individual will still cause trouble in the society where they are deported. Corporeal punishment, considered inhumane and ineffective, is abolished in our country but exists in some Middle Eastern countries. Imprisonment serves the purpose of three theories: deterrent, preventive, and reformative. Under the deterrent theory, it serves as

an example.

The purpose of the Preventive Theory lb is served by disabling the offender. Additionally, the purpose of Reformative Theory is served by the government's efforts in reforming the prisoner. However, there are certain disadvantages to consider. A. In the short term, this approach is disadvantageous. B. In the long term, solitary confinement is seen as an aggravated form of punishment that fully exploits the sociable nature of individuals. Critics argue that it is inhumane. F. Another disadvantage is the use of indeterminate sentences, where the accused is not sentenced for a specific period of time.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New