Criminology Court Case in Canada - Term Paper Example

Criminology Court Case Introduction A criminal case is an offense where a person contravenes the law of the land. The suspect is presented to the court and the evidence is provided by the state to prove the suspect either liable or innocent (Bergelson, 2009). Both the accused and the prosecutor will have to present evidence to the bench to prove their allegations. However, according to the law, a person is not considered liable for any crime until enough evidence to support his or her liability is provided by the witnesses. In the case that was presented to Vancouver Supreme Court on fifth of December 2012, the suspect had noticed possibility of an attack by thugs. He reported the case to the police as soon as realized unusual characters that area. However, about an hour later, the police was informed that a person had been killed in a neighboring refueling station. The same person who had informed the police that his life was in danger was found at the scene of crime and fell the first suspect. Different police officers arrived at the scene and considered him first suspect. The customs of criminal bench in Vancouver Supreme law court respects the crown and the safeguard the panel responsible for assessing the evidence given during the bench proceedings to settle the disputes more efficiently (Bergelson, 2009). The entire court proceedings are documented and involve a substantive discussion. The endeavors of the bar are to resolve the issues as soon as possible to evade piling up of legal cases. The crown mentioned the name of the suspect and started issuing statement regarding the alleged offense of the suspect. The opening of the trial was made by issuing a short description of the accusations. The accused names were mentioned and a statement issued regarding the crime which he had committed. The crown called upon all the witnesses who were police officers to issue their statements regarding what they witnessed about the suspect. They all provided the information they had regarding the suspect. They were asked to give evidence of what they saw or what made them conclude that the suspect indeed committed the alleged crime. Under criminal law, the suspect of an offense is called the accused. A criminal offence can be charged either as “summary conviction” or as “indictable offences” (Bergelson, 2009). In case a person is charged of summary the case will heard by a provincial court judge. This does the highest charge is $2,000, or a jail term of six months or both cash charges and six months in jail. Very demanding transgressions in nature are tried through a substantive procedure which involves a thorough investigation of the matter to establish enough facts to put on trial the suspect. The person may be arrested or requested to show before the bar to answer the accusation against him or her. If the culprit is arrested by the police, he or she will be given a privilege to hire a lawyer who will proceed with the case on his or her behalf (Bergelson, 2009). The suspect is always informed of the reason for the arrest and the accusation he or she will face. A suspect once arrested by the police can be detailed for not more than twenty four hours after which they are set free to attend the court proceedings and answer accusations against them (Bergelson, 2009). During the trials in the court, the prosecutor gives a detailed explanation why the suspect was arrested and convinces the court that the suspect should be maintained in police detention. On the other hand, the suspect will give detailed reason as to why he should be set free by denying the charge before him or her (Bergelson, 2009). However, in a criminal offense, the suspect has no opportunity to plead innocence. During the trial session, the accused enjoys other privileges. He or she is considered innocent until the court of law proves him or her otherwise. When making the ruling, judge will have to consider the circumstance which led to the suspect committing a crime. There are several reasons which can make a person commit a crime of murder. For example, if a person is attacked by bandits and had to act in self defense, the judge may consider this as a man slaughter and bears lesser penalty than murder. Intention killing is considered a very serious offense. Under this condition, the penalty imposed is higher (Bergelson, 2009). In the event where the suspect pleads guilty before the court of law, there is still an opportunity to appeal Part B: Summary During the trial on fifth of September 2012, the session began by the presiding judge mentioning the case policy and confirming that the accused was present. The judge read the accusation placed against the suspect. He went on to give evidence as to why the accused was considered suspect of killing (Bergelson, 2009). However, the accused was not given any opportunity to confess or to deny the charge placed against him. The judge called the seven police officers who were the witnesses to the incidence since they had arrived at the place of crime on the day it occurred. Each of them gave the confession of what they saw and the reason why they thought the act was committed by the suspect. From time to time, the prosecutor asked questions to confirm that the officers were sure of what they said. The prosecutor was the one responsible for calling upon the witnesses to give their evidence. Some questions were ordinary and applied to all the witnesses. They first identified themselves before they continued to give their opinion about what they saw. They were asked to testify how they got the information about the crime. They were asked to explain what they saw when they arrive at crime scene. The prosecutor demanded to know the extent to which they knew the suspect and whether they have knew him before that day and how they knew him. All the witnesses gave their responses in relation the questions asked. The first witness said that he recognized the suspect as the one who had early reported about threats at their police post an hour before the occurrence of the incident. He was the only person around the scene of crime and that is why he was arrayed in court as a potential suspect of the crime. When asked by the prosecutor whether there was any reason that made him believe the suspect indeed committed the crime, he confirmed that the accused appeared troubled and therefore, there was a probability that he had accidently or incidentally murdered the victim. The same reason could have made the suspect fearful and unable to escape. However, another witnessing officer claimed that since the accused person had been hanging around for more than one hour after he made a report to the police, there was a probability that he decided to take revenge against those who had threatened him earlier. After all, if he truly from hospital the moment he was being attacked, then he should have proceeded home immediately after he filed the case with the police but instead he opted to hang around. As the prosecutor continued to interrogate the witnesses, the judge was taking down notes and also interrupted from time to time to seek for clarification or a different question. All the witnesses responded to almost similar questions from the prosecutor and the judge on duty. In his ruling, the judge argued the suspect had contravened sections 10A and 10B of the law which describes killing of a human being whether oneself or for another person as a serious immoral act (Bergelson, 2009). However, he confirmed that further investigations needed to be carried out to attest the allegations. He did not rule out the possibility that the accused could be guiltless and that he was at the sight of incidence by chance. The case was not resolved on that day since the judge gave both accused and the prosecution side to present further support relating to the case (Bergelson, 2009). However, the accused will have a problem convincing the bench that he did not commit the offense. My reasoning is due to the fact that the suspect was the only one found at the scene of crime and claimed to be unaware of who did it. The fact that he had left the police post about an hour before the occurrence of the incidence shows that he was near the crime scene since that time and therefore, he should have seen who killed the victim if he was not actually the one who did it. Part C: Criminal Code The Canadian criminal code refers to the law which gives different offences levels according to the category of the offense committed and the gravity of offense. The criminal code in Canada was established in the year 1892. Section 91(27) of laws of Canada which came into existence in 1867 grants the national assembly an authority over criminal offenses (Bergelson, 2009). Therefore, several rules under the constitution confer authority upon the judicial system to deal with offences against the state. In the case above, part one of the legal code is about ordinary matters relating to criminal offences. Therefore, this is an important element of the law that provides a direction upon which the legal proceeding shall have to take (Bergelson, 2009). The part 2 of the legal code also gives information relating to crime against peaceful coexistence. The murder of an innocent person is against individual’s enjoyment of rights granted by the constitution. Similarly, part 12.2 provides guidelines about the process for implementation of the criminal rules. This part is very imperative since it gives direction which the cases relating to offences against humanity and property can be settled. Part 21.I gives details relating to the procedure individuals can use to plea in a higher court against a decision arrived at during resolution of an illegal act (Bergelson, 2009). Part 24 handles issues relating to criminals by categorizing them as either short lived or progressive cases. Finally, there is a Youth Criminal Justice Act which ensures that the criminals who have not attained the age of majority or specifically, the children who are in the age between 12 to 17 years are dealt with leniently under the this law. Therefore, the judicial system is a definitely structured judiciary with authority to handle unlike issues of diverse magnitude in a more defined ways (Bergelson, 2009). This ensures the application of the judiciary is done procedurally in accordance to the laid down procedure. If the accused accepts that he was truly in liable for the crime, there is probability for facing a penalty of $2000 or a prison sentence of six months (Bergelson, 2009). Also, there is a probability that the responsible killer may face both imprisonments for six months and a monetary fee of $2, 000. The bench process was well structured and focused on establishing the truth. However, the speed at which they were handling cases was not satisfactory. They should realize that “Justice delayed is Justice denied.” This process should be speeded up to ensure culprit is punished for their crime while the victim gets his fairness. The process was well coordinated and structured in a way that makes it easy to establish the truth. All the parties were impartially treated. The way the parties were responding to questions and analysis of all possibilities likely to result into an amicable solution to the problem was impressive. Generally the process was properly coordinated and encouraging. The approach in which they tried to establish the truth was really hopeful and created an avenue for establishing the truth. They also ensured the parties are given enough time to present the facts that will result to fairness of the entire system (Bergelson, 2009). The bench ruling had taken a long time trying to establish the truth and fairness. As such, this case is an inductive and the parties are still continuing to gather information. The procedure portrays the accused as a potential murderer. He was found at the scene of crime thereby creating a possibility that he was responsible of incidence. All the witnesses who found him at the scene of murder points an accusing finger at him. This means there is which chance that he truly committed the offence. Conclusion An offense relating to killing is very serious case in the Canadian court. The suspect is prosecuted before the bar and may be restricted until the moment the case will be completely resolved. The suspect is however blameless until proven otherwise by the court of law. The prosecutor bears the responsibility to provide evidence that the accused is indeed guilty. On the other hand, the accused has a right to prove his innocence. The procedure for settling criminal matters may take quite a long time because both parties must provide witnesses who will testify in their favor and the bench will require ample time to examine the case. Therefore, the judiciary should establish a mechanism of establishing justice effectively. This may be achieved through faster means of resolving issues in the court. Reference Bergelson, V. (2009). Victims Rights and Victims Wrongs: Comparative Liability in Criminal Law. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Read More