Criminal Defenses and Specialized Courts - Term Paper Example

?A Comparison of Criminal defenses and Specialized Courts In The United s, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia no: Sociology April, 2013 Introduction In this paper, the researcher analyzes two categorical topics; that is, a comparison of criminal law defenses in United States (USA), Nigeria and Saudi Arabia and the specialized Criminal Court system. A crime is a legal wrong. It is an act, default, conduct or omission which is prejudicial to the society, the commission of which warranties punishment either by way of imprisonment or payment of a fine as a method of punishment or both, and or any other appropriate form of punishment as Courts deem it fit in a just society. This is so because criminal Law looks at punishment of the offender rather than civil law remedy of compensation. As a general rule of criminal practice, every offender enjoys a right to a fair hearing encompassed in the cherished due process of law. To this effect, when a person is prosecuted under common law for countries like USA and Nigeria, the prosecution is under obligation to establish a premafacie case at preliminary trials. Once the premafacie case has been established, then the court will place the accused person on his or her defence such that he or she is not punished unheard as guaranteed under their respective Constitutions and Penal Laws giving a right to a fair hearing (due process of law). This means that the accused person is allowed to raise defenses available to his or her crime which is relevant and applicable to that jurisdiction. Examples of defenses include mistake of fact, provocation, self defense, automatism, diminished responsibility among others. Notable though is the fact that Saudi Arabia uniquely applies “Shari’ah principles, as derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah and state promulgated laws that do not contradict the provisions of the Qur’an and Sunnah.” Comparatively, some common law defenses applicable in USA and Nigeria do not apply to Sharia criminal system as herein discussed. Adherence to a fair hearing is respected in all countries. However, there is no need of establishing a premafacie case in Saudi Arabia. Once charged, you are tried directly and both parties are given a right to present their cases. Therefore, the accused is by all means expected to defend himself or herself unlike in common law jurisdiction where the accused will raise defenses upon establishing a case to answer. That being said, the author also examines the criminal Law specialized Court system in USA, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. The writer observes that both Nigeria and United States have specialized state and federal Courts that autonomously share jurisdiction in all criminal matters. But Nigeria has extra customary and Sharia law Court. The Nigerian sharia Courts are similar to that of Saudi Arabia. Federal Courts normally deals with interstate criminal trials whereas state Courts deals with state criminal trials. Saudi Arabia does not have federal Court structure but her Court system is collected from a combination of “Supreme Judicial Council, Courts of Appeals, and First-Instance Courts (General Courts and Summary Courts).” One unique feature is that ll countries have specialized Courts for criminal Proceeding as explained above with Supreme Court and Supreme Judicial Council as the Highest Courts of criminal Appeal for United States of America, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia respectively. They all have structures closer to people from local jurisdictions to the highest appellate Court as seen above. However, the big difference lies in the administration of criminal law justice system lies in a sense that Saudi Arabia system is designed typically according to sharia Law and there is no federalism of any sort as it is America and Nigeria. This also applies to Nigeria where similar sharia Law Court system is applied in Predominantly Islamic Northern states. However, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia differ on federal, customary and Magistrate Courts. Notable though is the fact that Nigeria and United States of America have Federal and state Court system recognized at all levels of criminal adjudication. However, they differ in terms of customary Courts, sharia and Magistrate Courts structures. Therefore, the following paragraphs show a comparative analysis the two criminal law categories chosen by the author. Country over view for the first category The first category is defenses to crime that apply to criminal law practice. The author is approaching this topic in relation to the manner in which criminals are prosecuted and given a chance to defend themselves. To this end, the writer examines recognized defenses to crime in Saudi Arabia, United States of America (USA) and Nigeria with reference to their Criminal Law statutes and case law. United States of America Originally colonized by Britain, America fought its way to gain independence on July 4th, 1776. For this reason, it had adopted the traditional Common law system derived from United Kingdom but later evolved to a predominantly federal system of criminal Justice. Therefore, she did not completely do away with the traditional common law defenses but modified to suit the prevailing circumstances of the American people. Like other criminal law countries, America maintained the traditional common law defenses such as Insanity, intoxication, Alibi, self defense-extended by the battered woman syndrome, provocation, automatism, partial diminished responsibility, mistake of identity, fact or law and entrapment among other defenses. Their fore father then reduced them into the penal laws as seen below. Entrapment is qualified affirmative defense arising from a situation whereby the crime is induced by government agents with the aim of prosecuting an innocent person. It is a criminal design implanted into the purported accused’s mind with the intention of maliciously prosecuting the innocent according to their lordships in the Jacobson v. United States (1992). For the a`cccused to succeed on this defence, he or she must prove government “inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct as per “Mathews v. United States (1988).” In the state of Ohio, this is an affirmative defence provided for under the “Ohio Revised Cod (2008, 2901.05(C) (2)).” With the defence of self defense, reference is made to the “Ohio Revised Cod (2008, 2901.05(B) (1)(2)).” This is one of the widely acceptable defenses in criminal liability and would successfully lead to the acquittal of the accused. It’s lawfully pleaded in the interests of the public or private purposes. A person is deemed to be lawfully acting under self defence while protecting his life, family and property from the aggressor. It is only that person being attacked in most circumstances who may act in self defence not the aggressor. The force used should be reasonably proportional to the attack or threat occasioned. This proportionality is left to the Court to decide and it is not automatic but will be weighed based on the evidence adduced to Court in relation to the circumstances surrounding the case, according to the Supreme Court in “Brown v. United States (1921).” The above defense has often times been extended by the doctrine of the “battered woman syndrome.” This doctrine was propounded by a psychiatric, Lenore Walker who stated that “a battered woman is a woman, 18 years of age or over, who is or has been in an intimate relationship with a man who repeatedly subjects or subjected her to forceful physical and/or psychological abuse (1984, P. 203).” This doctrine has been applied by Courts in the Common wealth countries to allow the admission of expert evidence of a psychiatric where a battered woman kills her male partner in the circumstances warranting criminal liability. Such research has been instrumental in assisting Courts while administering the common law defences of provocation and self defence according to “R. v. Lavallee (1990).” Another vital defense is Insanity. As a general rule, insanity may not be a defence to a criminal charge because every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to have been sane at any time that comes in question until the contrary is proved. This is the import of the “Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 8.01)”, that insanity is an “affirmative defence” where the accused was at the material time of the commission of the offence laboring with a disease of the mind, making him or her incapable of understanding what he or she is doing except that a person may be criminally liable for an act or omission if his or her mental disability does not affect that person’s understanding of the nature of offence being committed. This was declared in the case of Atkins v. Virginia (2002) where the Supreme Court halted the execution of mentally retarded person as bein inhumane contrally to the “Eighth amendment of Us Federal Constitution.” Furthermore is the defense of intoxication. Reference is also made to the “Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 8.04)”, where upon intoxication means the mental state of an accused person being caused by narcotics (drugs) or alcohol resulting into mental disability. Mental disorder as earlier stated does not necessarily affect a criminal charge or indictment and May not as a general rule, constitute a defense to any criminal charge. However, intoxication is a qualified defence if by reason of intoxication, the accused did not know what was wrongly done or what he or she was doing at the material time in question. This takes two forms, namely; Intoxication caused without the accused’s consent and, Intoxication that takes a quasi insanity nature where by the accused is insane by reason of intoxication, temporarily or otherwise. This is often times used as a mitigating defence to reduce on the culpable criminal charge but the above ingredients must be proved in order to succeed in this defense as per “Montana v. Egelhoff, (1996).” Diminished capacity is yet another defense to be considered. This refers to an impaired mental condition caused by intoxication, disease or trauma which prevents a person from having the criminal capacity necessary to make him or her responsible for his or her crime. It is one of the three mitigating circumstances under which a charge of murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter except for cases of involuntary manslaughter. This defense has not yet gained wide acceptance in American jurisprudence but a few states recognize it such as “California Penal Code (Section 25).” Therefore, this is a losely applied defence in United states. Mistake of law is further recognized defense in United states. According to “Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 8.02)” this defence is availble to the accused person who commits the offence under amistaken belief to the extent that “a matter of fact” mistaken leading to the commission of the offence, negates the intention required for that offence. However, the offender may be charged of a lesser offence kind of culpability required for commission of the offense as was the case in “Maryland v. garrison (1987).” Similar to this defense in mistake of Law“Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 8.03 (b) (c))” but is not widely accepted because nevertheless, the actor will be convicted. Duress is another defense recognized in United State of America. By virtue of “Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 8.05)”, a person is deemed to be under duress when the offence was commited under “threat or eminent fear of death.” If the accused did not commit the offence he,she or neighbour would either die or face danger of grevious bodily harm. Unable to resist the circumstances under duress as observed in the case of “Dixon v. United States (2006).” Another rare defense but still recognized in USA is the defence of Justification provided for by “Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 9.02)” to criminal circumstances that are justified by law. The other defense is necessity and its available where the actor does anything necessary to prevent any harm that may put his life or the life of others in danger per “Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 9.22).” Additionally, is the defense of Immature age except as may be proveided for under the law like“Texas Penal Code (§19.05, § 8.07)” and upheld by the Supreme Court in “Roper v. Simmons (2005).” Furthermore, is the defence of provocation. Provocation simply means sudden or temporally loss of self controls in the heat of passion upon which the accused commits an offence of death or grievous bodily harm before he or she cools the anger. It is therefore, a mitigating factor to the offence murder reducing it to manslaughter as per the case of “State v. Thompson (1992).” The other is the common law partial defence of automatism. Automatism is an involuntary act done by either the muscles or any other circumstance without any control of the mind such as spasm, reflex action or convulsion. It can also mean an act done while suffering from concussion or sleep walking. A person is deemed to be under a state of automatism while that person is suffering from psycho motor epilepsy and or any external physical control. Psycho motor epilepsy is a disease of the mind caused by ignorance of the nature and quality of the act or omission committed beyond the accused control, consent or intention. There must be total destruction of the accused voluntary control. It can either be non insane or insane automatism. According to the House of Lords in “Bratty v Ag of Northern Ireland (1961),” A person suffering from psycho motor epilepsy is under a state of insane automatism because this is a disease of the mind which affects your understanding of the nature, quality and control of the act or omission being committed. For this reason, the rules of insanity do apply. Non insane automatism refers to that state of mind where by though you are sane, external physical factors like, puncture of tires or brake failure of your vehicle, convulsion of the muscles or attack by a swarm of bees, a blow on your head accidentally or otherwise thus affecting your voluntary control of the act or omission being committed. Nigeria Most of the above defenses are available in Nigeria except the few as we shall see. Firstly, is the defense of claim of right provided for under “section 23 the Nigeria “criminal code Act’ (1990).” This defense normally arises in cases of theft. No person could be taken to be criminally responsible for an offence in relation to his or her property if the act or omission was done in exercise of an honest claim of right without any intention to defraud or do unlawful act. If the accused is the owner of the property or someone authorized to posses it and there is justifiable evidence to that effect, then he cannot steal his own property. So, this is a full defense in Nigeria. Other defenses include total denial, Insanity governed by sections 27 and 28, intoxication governed by section 29, mistake of fact provided for under section 25 of the same Act above. Furthermore is immature age under section 30, justification of an act or omission done in obedience to the law as required by section 32 of the same Act. The other similar defenses include self defense under section 32(3), 286 and upheld in the Nigerian Supreme Court in “Iheanyighichi Apugo v The State (2006).” Automatism and diminished responsibility are applied as full common law defenses in Nigeria. Saudi Arabia Self defense is one of the most recognized defenses in Saudi Arabia. Total denial governed by a right to fair hearing is regulated under article 38 of their constitution (1992) and the concurent articles 3 and 6 of law of criminal procedure (2001). Insanity is recognised but at a lesser extent because every body is presumed to know what he was doing and insanity is a hated thing in law of ALLAH. It is not a full defense perse. There are not much defenses to crime in Saudi Arabia because of the nature of their sharia law and some which are recognised are upon the discretion of the Judge like accident and mistaken identity. There is paymanet of diya instead of execution of the guilty murderer according to their sharia law if the families agree. It is an unwriten defense. Diya is a form of pecuniary recognition of the act by the family of the convict and accepted by the deceased family. However, this is a rare defense for most time, they are executed. Comparison In contrast and comparison, United states and Nigeria have a similar traditional common law defenses of insanity, total denial, provocation, diminished responsibility, mistaken law, fact or identity, self defense, intoxication, immature age, justification defense, necessity and automatism. However, they differ in terms of implementation. In United States, there is no claim of right recognised in Nigeria and diminished responsibity is partial defense and not widely recognised while in Nigeria, claim of right and diminished responsibility are full defenses applicable in murder cases and not even attempted murder as was rejected by Sedley, J in Walden case (1959) that diminished responsibility could not be a defence for attempted murder. Even if the murder was pre meditated does not affect the plea of diminished responsibility in Nigeria. Automatism and diminished responsibility are applicable in Nigeria as common law defenses while in USA, they are statutory defenses. In USA, battered woman syndrome has been used as an extension of the defenses of self defense and provocation while in Nigeria, its only self defense and no battered woman syndrome. Furthermore, Nigeria does not recognize necessity as a defense in her Criminal Justice system as it is the case in USA. Besides, Nigeria applies sharia Law defenses in Northern federal states while in USA, sharia law defenses are not applicable at all. Nigeria and Saudi Arabia therefore applies Sharia Law defenses as discussed above tantamounting to a good contrast of their criminal justice system. All states herein identified uphold mistake and total denial as a defense which drawn from giving the accused a right to a fair hearing, as well as the defenses of self defense and Insanity. Saudi Arabia differs completely from USA and Nigeria on the common law application of provocation, intoxication, diminished responsibility, and automatism, claim of right, justification, and mistake of law. They may seem applicable in media and political arena but not practically applied in Saudi Arabia because sharia law and the widely common law jurisdictions are totally different. The Judge in Saudi Arabia has discretion in determining the defenses accident which is not available in Nigeria and America. Country over view for the second category Another pertinent area of interest to this paper is the specialized criminal Court structures that handle criminal cases in the respective criminal justice system. This is peculiarly a federal Court system in USA, the quasi Federal and sharia law system in Nigeria and Purely Sharia law Court system in Saudi Arabia as seen in a combination the following analysis. United States of America. The judicial system in America is vested in the USA Supreme Court and all subordinate Courts as per article 3 of the “US Constitution (Barton, 2007, P.23)”. It is composed of the state and Federal Courts. State Courts are Courts of original criminal jurisdiction for cases committed within the state. The Federal Structure is made up of the Supreme Court of United States, the appellate Courts and District Courts. Criminal cases that are instituted in Federal Courts are those between citizens of different states, interstate offences and also cases of national nature (Barton, 2007, P.28). The first federal Court of instance are the District Courts like “international trade, Judicial District Courts, US Bankruptcy Court as well as US Court of federal claim”. If a party is dissatisfied with the decision of “District circuit Court,” he or she appeals to “the regional Circuit Courts of Appeal, US Court of Appeals for the federal claims” and finally to the “United States Supreme Court”-the Highest Court of the Land. Federal Courts play a supervisory over State Courts. Others federal Courts include the” military Courts, Courts of Veteran Appeals; US tax Court and Federal administrative agencies and Boards (Federal Court Structure, 2013).” The other category are the state Courts. Every state of United States has a Court structure dealing with majority of civil and criminal cases within that state jurisdiction. The first Court of instance in all states is the circuit Courts. The other is the intermediate state appellate Courts and lastly the State Supreme Court-as the last appellate Court in State matters. In Florida for example, there are 20 judicial circuit Courts, 5 district Courts of Appeal and lastly the State Supreme Court. Notable though is that whereas states have jurisdiction over majority criminal cases in States, the Federal Courts play a supervisory role in the administration of criminal justice across America(Federal Court Structure, 2013).” Nigeria Nigeria has a hybrid Court structure composed of both federal, state, customary and Sharia Law Courts. This structure is governed by chapter seven of the “Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (1999).” These include the “Supreme Court of Nigeria, the Court of Appeals, Federal High Courts and High Courts of States, Sharia Courts of Appeals and Customary Court of Appeals, Magistrates courts and Districts Courts, Customary, area and Sharia Courts.” Federal Courts are the “Supreme Court of Nigeria”-which is the highest appellate Court of the Land established under article 230 of the Constitution. It entertains all appeals from “Federal and State Courts.” Another is the “Court of appeal” established under article 237 and entertains all appeals from “High Courts.” In that order is the “Federal High Court of Nigeria” established under article 249 and exercises jurisdiction on civil and criminal cases arising from states of various nature. This in a descending order is followed by the “Sharia Court of Appeals and Customary Court of Appeals” established under articles 260 and 265 respectively under the same Constitution. These are the first appellate Courts for Sharia and customary law disputes which have a quasi criminal nature. Like in USA, Federal Courts play a supervisory criminal role over state courts. Besides the “Federal Courts “are the “State Courts.” In each federal state, there are “High Courts states” with original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases as provided for under articles 270-273 of the Constitution. The difference is that once a case turns out to be of a federal nature between the parties, then it will be taken to the “Federal High Court”. The other state Courts include the sharia Court of Appeal for each state governed by articles 275-279 to deal with all cases of Sharia nature for the Muslim community. Furthermore is the Customary Court of Appeals dealing with all forms of customary cases recognized by the indigenous communities of Nigeria coming from Local Courts of first instance governed by articles to 280-284? These Courts work closely with Magistrate and District Courts, together with Local sharia and Customary Courts. Under state Courts are the Supplemental Courts or Tribunals such as election tribunals in cases of election petitions governed by article 285. This is how the criminal Court structure is regulated in Nigeria. Saudi Arabia This country is predominantly a Muslim state that subscribes to sharia Law Court system for both criminal cases deriving their authority from the Quran according to article 1 Costitution of the “Republic of Saudi Arabia (1992)” and article 1 of the Saudi Arabia “Law of Criminal Procedure (2001).” Like in other states where sharia law is recognized, Saudi Arabia’s “Islamic court structure” is composed of “Supreme Judicial Council, Courts of Appeals (or Courts of Cessation) and First-Instance Courts (General Courts and Summary Courts).” The courts of first instance operate as traditional Courts. The Courts of first instance deal with lesser cases and under this category we also have the “shia Muslim Courts” that entertains family as well as religious cases. Appellate Courts are located in “Mecca and Riyadh” and have jurisdiction over all cases from Courts of first instance. The summary Courts have jurisdiction over all discretionary punishments except “statutory punishments” (Law of Criminal Procedure, 2001, article 128). The general Courts have criminal jurisdiction over all criminal cases that sumary Courts cannot handle in accordance with articles 129 and 130 of Law of Criminal Procedure,(2001). Appeals to the Court of Appeal are governed by article 139 of the same Law. The “Supreme Judicial Council” is the highest appellate Court in Saudi Arabia. Comparison In comparison, all countries have specialized Courts for criminal Proceeding as explained above with “Supreme Court and Supreme Judicial Council” as the Highest Courts of criminal Appeal for United States of America, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia respectively. They all have structures closer to people from local jurisdictions to the highest appellate Court. However, the big difference lies between United States of America and Saudi Arabia in a sense that Saudi Arabia criminal Court system is designed typically according to sharia Law and there is no federalism of any sort as it is in America where there is autonomous division of criminal jurisdictions between Federal Courts and State Courts across United States. This also applies to Nigeria and Saudi Arabia in a sense that whereas Nigeria shares a similar sharia Law Court system in the Predominantly Islamic states, the two countries differs on federal, customary and Magistrate Courts. Notable though is the fact that Nigeria and United States of America have Federal and state Court system recognized at all levels of criminal jurisdiction and higher appellate Court. However, the two Courts differ in terms of customary Courts. Nigeria has a diverse culture and her criminal system thus recognized customary courts to handle such trivial cases emanating from the communities’ customary practices. This is not the case in America and Saudi Arabia. The only closest Court in Saudi Arabia to the customary Courts of Nigeria is the “Shia Courts” dealing with tradition family and religious matters. Conclusion In conclusion therefore, the Author has found that there aren’t many defenses to crime in Saudi Arabia. The most similar defense across all jurisdictions is total denial where the accused denies that he or she did not commit the crime and it incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the offender. This total denial defense lies under the generally recognized natural principle of fair hearing. Other similar defenses are insanity defense upon proof of which the guilty person is relieved of the criminal duty by reason of insanity as well as self defense where the actor or offender repels the attacker reasonably even if it meant killing them. All these are recognized in all jurisdictions. However, Intoxication is not a defense in Saudi Arabia because Sharia Muslim Law does allow drinking or use of drugs but it’s a full defense in United States and Nigeria. For other defenses like mistake of fact, law or identity and justification which are applicable in America and Nigeria, are not applicable in Saudi Arabia. Therefore Saudi Arabia has a unique but rigid defense system. It is also the writer’s considered view that whereas USA and Nigeria share the traditional common law system, they differ in terms of prosecutorial use of jury and an assessor as far as interpretation defenses to crime is concerned. The jury and assessors play a similar role but in Nigeria for instance uses a national prosecution service adopted from England because it was her colony. The assessor’s decisions binds only if the judge is convinced that they properly applied the defense to the law, facts and evidence. Its discretionary where upon the Judge can choose to accept or depart away from the assessors? The Jury in United States gives the responsibility to each individual and their decisions binds most times. In Saudi Arabia, the judge is everything and can quickly make decisions from case to case basis. There is no use of assessors and jury whatsoever. USA and Nigeria, share a traditional common law system and the most common available defenses include Insanity, intoxication, Alibi, self defense extended by the battered woman syndrome, provocation, automatism, diminished responsibility, claim of right, mistake of identity among others. However, there are some few defenses where in Nigeria; some of her states which are predominantly Muslim apply sharia law. Some of the defences applicable in Saudi Arabia include insanity, mistake, accident, self defence among others. The writer concludes that whereas USA and Nigeria share the traditional common law system, they slightly differ in terms of prosecutorial use of jury and assessors. To the Court system, both Nigeria and United States have specialized state and federal Courts that autonomously share criminal jurisdiction in all matters. Federal Courts normally deals with interstate criminal trials and appeals whereas state Courts deals with state criminal trials. Saudi Arabia does not have federal Court structure but her Court system is collected from a combination of sharia criminal court structure involving “Supreme Judicial Council, Courts of Appeals, and First-Instance Courts (General Courts and Summary Courts).” References Arizona Revised penal code (2008) [cap2901]. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002). Barton, D. (2007). Documents of Freedom. Aledo-Texas: Wall builders. Bratty v Ag of Northern Ireland [1961] 3 ALL: ER 523, HL. Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921). Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1999). Costitution of the Republic of Saudi Arabia. (1992). Dixon v. United States (05-7053) 413 F. 3d 520. Federal Court Structure, (2013) Iheanyighichi Apugo v The State , 199 (Supreme Court July 14, 2006). Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992. Law of Criminal Procedure , Royal Decree No. M/39,(2001). Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987). Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Montana v. Egelhoff (95-566), 518 U.S. 37 (1996). Tex. Penal Code § 19.02 (1994), http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/ PE.19.62069.53391.htm#62071.53392. The Califonia Penal Code (1990) . State Court Structure (2013) R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Sedley, J in Walden case ( [1959] 3 ALL:ER 203, [1959] 1 WLR 1008). State v. Thompson (172 Wis. 2d 257, 493 NW2d 729, Ct. App. 1992). Walker, L. E. ( (1984)). The battered Woman. . New York: Inprint of Hypercollins. Read More