混乱的目的和不一致的裁决:德里法院保释裁决评估

Q3 Social Sciences
Anup Surendranath, Gale Andrew
{"title":"混乱的目的和不一致的裁决:德里法院保释裁决评估","authors":"Anup Surendranath, Gale Andrew","doi":"10.1017/asjcl.2024.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n A persistent issue in the Indian criminal justice system has been the over-incarceration of pre-trial detainees, which is inextricably linked with the practices of trial courts in deciding on the detention and release of accused persons pending trial. The present statutory law and judicial discourse provides little guidance on the process for deciding bail matters. There has also not been much effort to empirically research decision-making in such matters and/or the impact of these decisions on the pre-trial detainee population in prisons. The present study is an attempt to plug this gap, analysing ‘regular’ bail orders of Sessions Courts of Delhi available from the eCourts system between 2017 and 2019 for the offences of theft and rape. The data reveals a failure to recognise the fundamentally preventive purpose of bail, as well as to develop individualised and specialised processes in compliance with this purpose. Such failure in guidance has resulted in judges importing factors from the trial process that remain unjustified outside of the punitive detention process, such as guilt. In conclusion, we argue that a fundamental reimagination of the approach to bail is required – one that is distinct from the trial process and focuses instead on the individualised assessment of risk.","PeriodicalId":39405,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"114 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confused Purposes and Inconsistent Adjudication: An Assessment of Bail Decisions in Delhi's Courts\",\"authors\":\"Anup Surendranath, Gale Andrew\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/asjcl.2024.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n A persistent issue in the Indian criminal justice system has been the over-incarceration of pre-trial detainees, which is inextricably linked with the practices of trial courts in deciding on the detention and release of accused persons pending trial. The present statutory law and judicial discourse provides little guidance on the process for deciding bail matters. There has also not been much effort to empirically research decision-making in such matters and/or the impact of these decisions on the pre-trial detainee population in prisons. The present study is an attempt to plug this gap, analysing ‘regular’ bail orders of Sessions Courts of Delhi available from the eCourts system between 2017 and 2019 for the offences of theft and rape. The data reveals a failure to recognise the fundamentally preventive purpose of bail, as well as to develop individualised and specialised processes in compliance with this purpose. Such failure in guidance has resulted in judges importing factors from the trial process that remain unjustified outside of the punitive detention process, such as guilt. In conclusion, we argue that a fundamental reimagination of the approach to bail is required – one that is distinct from the trial process and focuses instead on the individualised assessment of risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39405,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"114 19\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2024.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2024.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

印度刑事司法系统中长期存在的一个问题是过度监禁审前被拘留者,这与审判法院在决定拘留和释放待审被告时的做法密不可分。目前的成文法和司法论述几乎没有为保释事项的裁决程序提供指导。在对此类事项的决策和/或这些决策对监狱中审前被拘留者的影响进行实证研究方面,也没有做出多少努力。本研究试图填补这一空白,分析了 2017 年至 2019 年期间电子法院系统中德里地方法院针对盗窃罪和强奸罪的 "常规 "保释令。数据显示,人们未能认识到保释的根本预防目的,也未能根据这一目的制定个性化和专门化的程序。这种指导上的失误导致法官从审判程序中引入在惩罚性拘留程序之外仍然不合理的因素,如有罪。总 之 , 我 们 认 为 必 须 从 根 本 上 重 新 设 计 保 释 的 方 法 -- 这 种 方 法 有 别 于 审 判 程 序 , 而 是 侧 重 于 个 人 化 的 风 险 评 估 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Confused Purposes and Inconsistent Adjudication: An Assessment of Bail Decisions in Delhi's Courts
A persistent issue in the Indian criminal justice system has been the over-incarceration of pre-trial detainees, which is inextricably linked with the practices of trial courts in deciding on the detention and release of accused persons pending trial. The present statutory law and judicial discourse provides little guidance on the process for deciding bail matters. There has also not been much effort to empirically research decision-making in such matters and/or the impact of these decisions on the pre-trial detainee population in prisons. The present study is an attempt to plug this gap, analysing ‘regular’ bail orders of Sessions Courts of Delhi available from the eCourts system between 2017 and 2019 for the offences of theft and rape. The data reveals a failure to recognise the fundamentally preventive purpose of bail, as well as to develop individualised and specialised processes in compliance with this purpose. Such failure in guidance has resulted in judges importing factors from the trial process that remain unjustified outside of the punitive detention process, such as guilt. In conclusion, we argue that a fundamental reimagination of the approach to bail is required – one that is distinct from the trial process and focuses instead on the individualised assessment of risk.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Asian Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL) is the leading forum for research and discussion of the law and legal systems of Asia. It embraces work that is theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, doctrinal or comparative that relates to one or more Asian legal systems, as well as work that compares one or more Asian legal systems with non-Asian systems. The Journal seeks articles which display an intimate knowledge of Asian legal systems, and thus provide a window into the way they work in practice. The AsJCL is an initiative of the Asian Law Institute (ASLI), an association established by thirteen leading law schools in Asia and with a rapidly expanding membership base across Asia and in other regions around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信