Case and Statute Law for Balancing between the Rights of Defendants and the Interests of Justice - Essay Example

The extent to which case and statute law strike the right balance between the rights of defendants and the interests of justice in respect of unfelt obtained evidence Name: Instructor: Date: Statute law is an identified act by the legislature that gives declaration, proscription, and or commandments on some things. It is a written specific law. This written law is always passed by the legislature imposed on a state or a federal level. Statutes give specified propositions of law that are used in courts when applying to specific examples. As a result of this, a statute may prohibit certain acts, give direction to a certain act, give declaration or maybe forth the governmental mechanisms to aid the society. However, Case law is a set of legal principles that are enunciated and embodied by the judicial decisions which are provided by the application of specified areas of law to the facts of single cases. To add on, case law appears to be on the opposite side of the statute law. Case law is a body of law which is dynamic and constant in developing laws. There are several portions included in each case that contain facts of the controversy. Additionally, these portions are set aside and as well as the holding and dicta.1 Dicta mean the explanation of ways in which judges arrive at a particular decision. Unlike statute law, case law includes concurring and disserting issues of other judges. During court proceedings, the balance between the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice are really affected by both case law and statute law. To start with the statute law influences the decisions made by the judges which might affect the defendants or the judges in general. For example a certain statute law passed by the legislation may prohibit a certain act. However, the defendant might have committed such an act because of genuine reasons. But these genuine reasons may not help him in changing the judge’s decision if the statute prohibits the act. Additionally, if the judge makes the decision favoring the defendant, then the statute might haunt him later and cause him/her the job.2 For example a statute may be passed by the parliament saying that someone found committing murder will be sentenced to death or life sentenced in prison. But this particular defendant provides information that the reason behind his act is because of self-defense. He argues out that he never intended to commit murder. The act happened to exist because he was trying to defend himself. The statute may states that this person should be sentenced to life imprison or sentenced to death. But the judge is confused between two facts, the decision of the statute and the arguments of the defendant. The final decision made actually affects both the interest of justice and the rights of the defendant thus creating imbalances between the two. The power owned by the statutes is not that complete as compared to other forms of laws. In the U.S. Constitution and other state constitutions, both federal and state governments contain several systems of checks and balances that are included in the legislative, executive and judicial branches. When the system of checks and balances is active, the executive and judicial branches gain the chance to show laws in specified limits. The executive then may have the power of making laws under the federal and state constitutions. On the other hand, the judiciary owns the power of reviewing statutes and determines if these statutes are valid under those constitutions. During the court proceedings, if a particular statute is looked down upon, the court derives its own law that will apply to the public.3 With the above argument, it is then noted that statutes are more flexible than other forms of laws. This means that the other forms of laws are more powerful than the statute law. If these statutes are weak and can be changed anytime, then a judge can influence these statute laws and make decisions upon his/her defined laws. This later affects the right of the defendant thus creating an imbalance between the right of the defendant and the interest of justice since justice would have been made in favor of the plaintiff.4(Shea, 2002, 101). Judicial laws or laws made by the judicial branch stand a position of contradistinction to the statutes created by the legislature. Just as said, the case law has similar binding effects just like the statute law but there are differences between the two that must be put in to consideration. As opposed to the statute law, the case law is normally written by the judges but it is not elected by the law makers. The case law is written in response to a specified case that happens in the court. However, an opinion of judicial nature may be used as the precedent for same cases. This poses a meaning that the judicial opinion may influence the decision to be made in similar cases. With this in mind, the opinion of judicial nature can create a law on a specified case or issue in reference to a particular jurisdiction. Additionally, an establishment of a law can be made by the court when there is no existence of statute law that governs a given case or either way when the court gives interpretation to a given statute. All in all, if the statue is flexible and influenced by the judges, a wrong decision can be achieved. A good example is when an appeals court holds that a given witness testimony on memory retrieved through therapy is not an admissible fact during trial. The decision made here will work as guidance to other similar cases in the appeals court’s jurisdiction. Here, the decision will still remain as a law and will be used in similar cases until the court is reversed by the high court or until the federal or state legislature identifies a statute that will definitely overrule the judicial decision. However, if the court strikes down a certain statute and then the legislature passes a statute similar to the one the court stroke down, then the court gains the power of declaring the new statute as an unconstitutional statute. This process can be repeated over time if the legislature has a continued form of testing the constitutional limits on the lawmaking powers. With this in mind, a defendant may be punished in reference to a decision made in an appeals court on a similar case. This might bring imbalances since maybe the defendant is not guilty but he is punished in reference to a similar case. Additionally, the judicial opinions count a lot in providing legal authority when it comes to areas that are not covered by the statute. Despite the fact that the legislature passes several statutes, it does not mean that the legislature has passed statutes to provide governance over every conceivable dispute or case. To add on, the language usable in the statute law is not used to cover every possible situation. These statutes may be or may not be written in general terms and however the judicial opinions must own the responsibility of interpreting the language of the relevant statute as based on the facts of the case at hand. Furthermore, the rules and regulations passed by the administrative agencies come to fit in the statutory gaps in that courts are called upon to give interpretation of the regulations and statutes on occasion. If the statute laws are not independent, then it means that they depend on other cases such as case laws or other judicial opinions and thus the defendants might be affected.5 (Bosmajian, 1992, 44). There are several general rules and methods used by the courts in determining the meaning and scope of the statute law. If the statute law has no clear indications on the definitions of the specified ambiguous terms, then the courts must take the responsibility and give interpretation of the terms playing by the general rules of grammar and dictionary. If some of the words, terms or phrases are technical or legal, they are then interpreted by the use of statute law context. For example a certain word such as interest may mean monetary charge or maybe ownership of property. If the term interest happens to be appearing in the context of the context on the real estate ownership, a court will decide to construe the word to mean property ownership. Additionally, previous interpretations of same statutes are also important in determining a statute’s meaning. This might be a disadvantage to ignorant defenders. These defenders may not be sure of the term they use. They may use certain terms or phrases that are contained in a different context which may lead to a decision that may affect them. Actually, the statute laws are not even static and irreversible. A statute law may be influenced and altered by the lawmaking body that created it, or it may also be overturned by the court. Additionally, lapse may occur in a statute law under the general terms of the statute itself or even under the legislative regulations that terminate statutes automatically unless they are subjected to approval before a certain amount of time has passed. As discussed, the issue of statute being changed or altered affects the balance between the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice.6 (Sullivan, & Bell, 2009, 204). Now that the U.S. legal system contains a common-law system, the lower courts arrive at solutions in reference to higher courts. However, this applies only if the cases are of similar nature and not different. The concept of precedent or state Decisis owns the meaning that adherence to previously decided cases in proceeding over the case. This means that the appellant case is used as a binding factor in the lower courts. Just as discussed earlier, the dependence of lower courts on previously made decisions shows how lower courts are can make mistakes of making wrong decisions thus subjecting the defendants or the interest of justice at risk. To influence and maintain the balance between the rights of the defendants and the interest of justice, there must be a way where lower courts make their own courts in reference to the availed facts of the case and not in reference to statutes or the previously made decisions of higher courts during a similar case.7 The reported solutions made by the appeals courts and other courts that make new interpretations of law can be referenced as precedents. The identified interpretations have different issues as compared to statutory laws. The common law is general acceptable law carried around in the state. However, the decisions and the hearings that happen to have no appeals in the appeals courts are not referred to as case laws. Furthermore, they are not precedent or new interpretations. In most cases, the rulings and the hearings that happen to have appealing bring out many problems that happen to cause imbalances between the right of the defenders and the interests of justice (Visser, 2014, 89). According to the admissibility character evidence in section 98 to 113 criminal justice act in 2003 which applies to most of the criminal proceedings. However the admissibility of the bad behaviours is abolished as stated under section 141 criminal justice act 2003. First of all, any rule or regulation in which criminal proceedings evidence occur is admissible for the providence of good character only if it allows the court to take such evidences as the proving factor to the matters concerned. The admissibility of character evidence is a decision or law made by the judicial opinions on certain cases. If the same admissibility character is put in to consideration during an appeal of the similar case to the previous case, then the defendant will suffer the risk of being subjected to either unnecessary punishments or the judge may give improper decisions on the case. For example the evidence provided about the complainant’s sexual history in the case of sexual offences remains restricted in the section 41 of youth justice and criminal act 1999 which is an addition to section 112(3b) of criminal justice 2003. Here the bad character is the evidence. However, some statute laws prohibit the providence of the bad character as evidence during a given case. In a court’s proceeding, to give evidence for the complainant’s previous behaviour which is regarded as the bad behaviour, both tests must be fulfilled. However, in most cases, test against the defendant is used. That means that evidence provided against is the commonly used fact in making decisions against the defendant. With this in mind, the defendants will be disadvantaged since the decisions made do not favor them at any cost which causes imbalances between the right of the defendants and the interests of justice. To ensure there is balance between the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice, the court must include the evidence of bad character. The incidence where the evidence provided is listened from one particular party, plaintiff is not right. The defendants’ rights states that decisions should be made upon satisfied hearing and enough evidence provided against them additionally, decisions are to be made if the evidence provided by the defendant is provided which may be viewing the bad character of the plaintiff. Better decisions are only regarded to as best when they appear to balance between the rights of the plaintiff, the defendant and the interests of justice. With the facts given above, the rights of the defendants must be put in to consideration when arriving at decisions in the courts. Lower courts should make their own decisions basing their decision on other factors other than basing on the decisions of the previously made decisions on a similar case. Read More