Justice delayed is justice denied is rightly the present scenario of India. Justice though is difficult to define,bt can be said that it varies according to situations and persons. Since we live in a deomocratic country like india where people are governed by the laws of the country , it is very important to deliver justice on time to the victims to prevent the miscarriage of justice. It is rightly called the shield of innocence and the guardian of civil right. This is so because, like Martin Luther said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” A very recent survey in India shows that there are approximately 3.2 crore cases spending in high and lower courts which means there is no meaning for justice and if at it is there , it is in a very wrong timely fashion. But it dosent mean that justice should be hurried and consequently buried bt justice should be renderered on a proper time basis and justice must be manifestly done. But the present day society is a victim to the dilatoriness of the process of justice.People unfortunately fall victim to injustice. Majority of the Indians are poor and illiterate but still they manage to go to courts to get justice by paying their hard-earned money to advocates, Law clerks and fail to get justice.This has been a curse and a major drawback to Indian judicial justice
The most recent Nirbhaya case can be taken as the best example where the incident took place on 16th December 2012 which shook the whole country but thought the justice was delivered it was delivered on 10tseptember 2013 which was a delayed one. In a country like india where women are respected and treated like god , rape cases are on a very high zone and the ratio has been incressing day by day and eventually the justice delivered in such cases is also very time consuming where most of the rape victims would have already been on their dead bed. There should be some standerdisation on such rape cases where justice should be delivered as quickly as possible keeping in factor how heineous, brutal and ghastly the crime is. Several steps should be taken to reframe the judicial system by increasing the no of fast track courts and computerization of the whole countrys judicial system is the need of the hour. The judges must set examples to themselves as well as others by being more punctual and dutiful. Honble Supreme court has already taken some steps like introducing E- filing where an advocate or a petioner
can file his case online from anywhere in the world. There should be still more steps which has to be undertaken to prevent the entire scenario of justice getting delayed. By doing so India can stand as a more clean country.
Justice delayed and justice denied means that if justice is not carried out right away timely, then even if it is carried out later it is not really justice because there was a period of time when there was a lack of justice.
In vogue justice delayed justice denied is a very smooth saying. But it is not as easy to understand without clarification as to what actually is meant by the delay of justice. Justice is something meant to be handled at the present moment. Without justice system there can be no state worth the name. It is rightly called the shield of innocence and the guardian of civil right. This is so because, like Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” But for a good judiciary it is essential that justice should be impartial, speedy and cheap. Therefore if someone delays something as important as justice knowing that injustice is a threat to it, then the person is denying justice. In history, we can look out the justice technique of kings. They never delayed in their judgments. They always judge the crime fact in a very short time. But In our society we always see the phenomenon. If anyone accused any kind of crime, he must be punished at once or else. If the justice delayed, the criminal somehow escape from his crime and prove himself as an innocent man. He will also try to make his punishment very small. Thus a criminal prove himself as an innocent because of delay of justice. If we wanted to punish the criminal for his crime we have to justify his crime in a short time or he will able to escape from his crime. If justice is delayed and justice is not really done people, then the life and property can not be safe. So we have to justice a crime without any delay, otherwise the fact will go behind the doubt.
In short terms it means that if the justice is delayed by any cause it is very harmful to the people of any society. So we have to justify any kind of crime without.
Before the Law chronicles sixteen-year-old Kalief Browder’s arrest, three-year incarceration in the Rikers Island Correctional Facility, and the months following the dismissal of his case without a trial. On May 15, 2010, Roberto Bautista reported to the police that he had been robbed. The police detained Kalief, but he was not in possession of any of the stolen items. When they spoke with Bautista after the search, he changed the date of the robbery to two weeks prior. On Bautista’s inconsistent accusation alone, Kalief was arrested on multiple felony charges and held without bail.
Kalief spent the next three years in the juvenile detention facility on Rikers Island. Though the prosecution stated that they were ready for trial, they later retracted their statement of readiness and requested endless adjournments. Further hearings became delayed by weeks or months due to court congestion. Kalief steadfastly waited for trial, refusing on numerous occasions to be coerced, by both the prosecution and the judge, into a guilty plea for a reduced sentence. Over time, his resolve waned, and he attempted suicide twice. However, on his 31st court date, 1,110 days after his arrest, the prosecution dismissed his case due to their inability to meet the burden of proof required for conviction. Bautista, the only witness, had returned to Mexico and was unable to be contacted. Kalief was released the following day.
Since his release, Kalief has been unable to return to his life as it was before his arrest and suffers from continuing mental health problems, including depression, social anxiety, and flashbacks. He has filed a lawsuit against the New York Police Department, the City of New York, the New York Department of Corrections, and the Bronx District Attorney. All have denied any wrongdoing.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: “Before the Law” by Jennifer Gonnerman, The New Yorker, October 6, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/law-3
Student Researcher: Kari Johnson, Indian River State College Faculty
Faculty Evaluator: Jared Kinggard, Ph.D., Indian River State College
The court’s treatment of Kalief’s case flagrantly violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, which together afford individuals the right to a speedy trial in state courts. In accordance with the Amendments, New York allows for a case to be dismissed for failure to prosecute a felony within six months after the commencement of a criminal action, N.Y. Code Crim. Proc. §§ 30.20, 30.30. However, New York’s highest court has held that once the prosecution has stated on the record that they are ready for trial to proceed, post-readiness delays due to court congestion do not provide a basis for dismissal, see e.g. People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201, 210 (1992), People v. Nielsen, 306 A.D.2d 500 (2d Dep’t 2003). These decisionsdirectly conflict with a prior United States Supreme Court ruling that rejects the notion that limitations of the States’ public resources justify unreasonable delay. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 538 (1972).
The Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment serve to protect the public’s inalienable natural rights from overreaching federal and state governments. However, when a preponderance of evidence suggests that an individual has violated the rights of another or of society, the violation acts as a forfeiture of the individual’s right to freedom and autonomy in that society. In these instances, the speedy trial clause exists, in part, to protect these individuals from potentially wrongful imprisonment lasting longer than is necessary to determine their guilt or innocence. The decisions of Cortes, et al. offend this process and the moral foundations upon which the Bill of Rights was constructed. Cortes, et al. essentially permits the state to shed the burden and consequences of its own deficient justice system by placing them upon those who are involuntarily bound within it.
This modus operandi renders the most basic maxim of American justice, “innocent until proven guilty,” completely meaningless. A finding of innocence is nothing more than a platitude if a sentence reserved for the guilty has already been served. Kalief was only sixteen when he was arrested, and was wrongly denied the entire latter half of his adolescence. He missed teenage rites of passage such as attending prom, earning a high school diploma, participating in graduation, and attending college with his peers. Though the lawsuit that he has brought against the various institutions and divisions of New York may result in the award of compensatory damages, Kalief is without any truly equitable remedy for the loss of three formative years of his life.
Kalief’s story is only that of one individual, and it is so egregious that it is appealing to dismiss him as an anomalous victim of “the system.” Indeed, in a justice system as large as the United States’, with large populations and extensive procedural requirements, an otherwise functional court system may be granted the occasional mistake. It is unrealistic to expect perfection from any being or entity. However, he is only one of hundreds of Americans whose fundamental rights have been violated by the deficient Bronx County court system. Bronx County accounts for two-thirds of New York City inmates awaiting trial for more than five years (William Glaberson, Faltering Courts, Mired in Delays, N.Y. Times, April 13, 2013, available at nytimes.com). A lack of resources is actually but one of a plethora of reasons for the court’s delays, including shortened courthouse workdays, unqualified judges, and prosecutors’ vacations and picnics, id.
Kalief’s ordeal illuminates the Bronx County court system’s chronic violations of the inalienable rights granted to us by our Constitution – rights that we retain regardless of the financial resources available to the judicial district in which we happen to reside. However, another matter altogether are the abuses he suffered at the hands of the correctional officers and inmates during his time at Rikers, his lack of redress for stopping those abuses, and the insufficiency of the evidence upon which he was originally arrested. These injustices are each troubling in their own right and deserve further attention.
Share this: on Twitteron Facebookon Google+