A Study on Delay in Disposal of Civil Litigation in Bangladesh Perspective

Our society for the most part has a set of written laws by which it operates under. Laws govern our behavior in society and list punishments by which individuals that break them will be prosecuted and sentenced. Our criminal justice system is essential made up of three major intuitions which see a case from the beginning and through the trial and finally to the punishment phase ("How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?," 2014). Our society needs laws and punishment for those who violet the laws otherwise we would live in a world of chaos. In this paper we will examine various aspects of the criminal process from arrest through sentencing and appeal.

The criminal justice system consists of models and theories that often contradict one another. Of these models are the crime control model, the due process, model, the consensus model and the conflict model. In this paper these models are evaluated and defined, as well as each entity in the criminal justice systems role within each model. Policing, corrections and the court system all subscribe to each model in some way and in a hurried manner in cases that dictate such a response. As described by Erik Luna in the Models of Criminal Procedure, the following statement summarizes the aforementioned most appropriately.

Within the criminal justice system discuss the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in achieving justice.

To provide a balance in specific nations and considerations of cross cutting, the issues must go beyond national boundaries. The traditional contrast of adversarial versus legal systems will be to determine what impacted each system that may have on preventing wrongful convictions and whether or not the traditional difference remains viable or needs revision. The number of public policies intended to reduce the number of these convictions and compensate more fairly and just to those who are the victims of these mistrials.

In the course preserving the law and order, the effectiveness of the system designed to administer justice cannot be over emphasized. Faith in the adjudicatory system by the populace is often underscored by the satisfaction the populace derives from it in terms of its administration of justice. Hence it is pertinent to analyze the approach certain countries are employ in their respective adjudicatory process.

It is said that, “Delivering justice for mass atrocities is a daunting challenge in any country, and the scale of the Rwandan genocide would have overwhelmed even the best­ equipped judicial system” (Rwanda). Even though there were doubts, the government of Rwanda believed that they would be able to deliver justice through the domestic and community courts. It turned out that Rwanda was able to push through and serve their country justice in less than twenty years. The government took great efforts in order to deliver the justice that they felt was necessary for their people. The justice process did not go without sacrifice. Furthermore, “Some have paid a high price. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, in particular, thousands of people were arbitrarily arrested, and many were charged and tried in the absence of solid evidence against them. Some might have been wrongly convicted. The lack of safeguards against abusive prosecutions in a weak judicial system heightened the risk of unfair trials” (Rwanda). This illustrates the flaws that pushing for justice can create. Although it is important for victims to be awarded with a sense of righteousness, rushing the process can cause even more

Limitations of criminal law and due process are present in almost all parts of the statutory law. One major component of these limitations is what is known as “the Statute of Limitations,” or a statute which limits the time a crime is allowed to be prosecuted by. This is an essential part of the criminal justice system today, and has been for centuries. With these statutes, citizens have more of their rights protected and the government power is put into check. The Statute of Limitations, despite the limitations and barriers it puts on the prosecutorial team or the plaintiffs, is beneficial to American citizens in many forms. The Statute of Limitations can hinder the criminal justice system in some aspects, but is a beneficial tool which continues to protect citizens from an overbearing government and justice system. Because of this, the American criminal justice system has become what it is today and allows for protection of rights which are considered undeniable. Through the examination and analyzation of both historical and modern aspects of the American criminal law, the evidence proves the Statute of Limitations is an essential part of the criminal justice system, for both the government and the citizens themselves.

Society has a need for quality and equal justice along with protection for everyone and the process of how to effectively implement such a thing has been an issue for many years. Focusing on the problems of society incorporates methods of trying to fix it from political measures to law enforcement measures. The combined effort of the two brings out the issue of what method should be used to dominate the problems. Looking at

This paper is going to describe the road from arrest to Supreme Court, and the two ways a

Most people don’t know about the three major components of the criminal justice system, but, in this paper the reader will know what they are. The reader will also read about how the three components interrelate to one another, and also how the conflict one another. The

The conventional accounts of Justice normally begin by stating a fundamental rule of Aristotle – Justice is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, and that unequal treatment should be in proportion to the inequality. In everyday life though, justice is seen as an attribute of law, while all laws are not necessarily just. Many great socio- political movements of the world have focused from time to time on unjust laws eg Apartheid laws in South Africa and Caste laws in India. Impartiality and fairness are understood to be the two aspects of justice. But it would be misleading to suggest that Justice refers solely to the fair application of a rule.

The Criminal Justice Systems have various objectives to achieve, one of them being reduction of crime levels. Another core objective is practicing justice. These two objectives can be achieved in various ways. Evidence has been presented by the authors that the judicial systems sometimes play unfair in solving crime cases.

The due process and crime control models, both created by Stanford University law professor Herbert Packer, represents two opposing method of principles functioning within criminal justice system. Although the models describe the important facets of the politics and practice of criminal justice, both have been criticized since presented by Packer in 1964. Presently both models are acknowledged as imperfect standards to explain the politics and law of criminal justice. The crime control ideal represents traditional principles, whereas the due process belief reflects moderate values; therefore generating conflict evident throughout the years. This paper discusses models, crime control and due process, and how each affects the criminal

Capital punishment is beneficial to the community. It provides the society with a sense of security. The death penalty contains a positive influence on the future. A heavily debated topic is, “Does capital punishment deter people more than a life sentence to prison?” An explanation on why will be covered later. An issues many people have with capital punishment, is when it is just or not just. This is a topic many stray away from, because it is difficult to decide. Finding the right consequence for an action is difficult. While this paper is for the use of capital punishment, it is clearly not needed for every crime, or even every murder. Overusing capital punishment, such as using it for every murder, will negatively impact the country, and not using it has the same effect.

The Supreme Court of India has adopted a forward-looking approach since last few years, particularly having regard to the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country. In fact there are two kinds of approaches which characterise the functioning of the highest Court in every