Alternative Dispute Resolution In Criminology
Alternative Dispute Resolution In Criminology This article deals with one of the significant applications of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies related to criminology. ADR is often associated with civil law, although more recently there has been increased interest in its potential use in criminal justice systems. it looks at how various alternative dispute resolution techniques are used in criminal law, including plea bargaining, diversion programs, mediation, and restorative justice. References It examines how alternative dispute resolution can speed up the disposal of cases, reduce the case backlog, and promote the accountability of offenders, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in the criminal justice system. The study also examines the ethical issues and limitations of alternative dispute resolution in criminal situations, specifically, this article provides insight into the effectiveness of ADR approaches, their impact on victims, and the potential for reconciliation and healing in the criminal justice system. Current research and case studies. it encourages further exploration of alternative dispute resolution’s potential to promote justice and heal communities harmed by crime, contributing to the ongoing conversation about non-adversarial approaches to dispute resolution within criminology. Introduction The power lies with Civil Courts to refer cases for alternative dispute resolution like judicial settlement, arbitration, conciliation & mediation by Lok Adalats under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. unlike civil disputes, the scenario is different in the criminal environment and the distinction is expressed as follows: “Restorative” justice, which views crime as a violation of one person’s rights by another person and believes that justice in a criminal context should emphasize compensation for the victim’s harm, is represented in the criminal context by ADR. alternative dispute resolution in the criminal context includes the concept of reparation in the context of transitional justice, which may not be present in civil Restitution is constructive action taken by the offender on behalf of the victim and society, which may include monetary compensation, community service, etc. In a civil context, compensation is only part of a court In civil situations, an ADR is confidential and a matter between the parties only, but in criminal cases, some case laws require that the final decision be made public by the However, as shown in the precedent case of Afcons Infrastructure and Ors. V. Cherian Varkey Construction & Ors, the Indian criminal justice system was not open to the idea of including the option of mediation. Inclusion Of Plea Bargaining Used effectively in many jurisdictions around the world, plea bargaining can be described as a pre-trial agreement between the prosecution and the accused in which the accused pleads guilty in exchange for certain concessions made by the prosecution. as the following judgments show, the Supreme Court has not always supported the inclusion of plea bargaining in Indian criminal law: Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar Meghraj Loya The state of Maharashtra rejected the idea of plea bargaining as it violated the fundamental right of a person accused of a crime not to be compelled to testify against himself. Kasambhai State of Gujarat and Kachia Patel Shantilal Koderlal Vs. In the State of Gujarat and Anr, the Supreme Court while condemning and condemning the plea deal accepted by the Magistrate held that plea bargaining is against public policy. According to the court, plea bargaining is an ultra virus of society and even the Constitution. It can also encourage collusion and corruption and taint the pure fountain of justice. Thippeswamy Vs. In the State of Karnataka, the Court held that it would be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution to induce or induce an accused to confess to a crime in return for a promise or assurance. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005 enacted in response to the 154th Law Commission Report paved the way for introducing Chapter XXIA, Sections 265 A to 265L of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), including plea bargaining. Concept as an alternative to the normal process of resolution of disputes by courts. Plea bargaining is allowed in situations where the maximum penalty is seven years in prison, the crime has not adversely affected the socio-economic status of the nation and the victim is not a woman or a child under the age of fourteen. Sections That Recognise The Concept Of Settlement The rules of procedure to be followed by the court in case of mutually satisfactory disposition are laid down in Section 265-C. The court will serve the interested public prosecutor, the investigating officer of the case, the victim of the case, and the accused to attend the meeting to find an acceptable solution to the case filed on the basis of the police report. In case of a complaint, the court only gives the statement of the accused and the victim. The procedure for preparation and submission of a report on mutually satisfactory settlement Is regulated in Section 265-D. However, two situations can arise here: If the court prepares a satisfactory settlement report at the hearing held under section 265- C, it must be signed by the presiding judge and every other participant, if If there is no resolution, the court continues the trial of the accused in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code while filing a motion in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 265-B. Domestic Courts Perspective The following judgments show that the courts recognized the idea of ADR procedures after the establishment of plea bargaining in Indian criminal law: Gian Singh Vs. In the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held and accepted that an out-of-court settlement was the result of the High Court exercising the legal power conferred on it by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Family disputes where the wrong is primarily private or are of a personal nature and the parties have settled their dispute” are also exempted from this rule. In these situations, the High Court has the power to stay the criminal proceedings if it determines that the offender and the victim have reached a full and final compromise…