评估取消制度或者保留制度的辩论 [5]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-10-03编辑:zcm84984点击率:17227
论文字数:5955论文编号:org201409281320035540语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:免费论文
关键词:保留制度Law Essay取消制度逻辑推敲
摘要:本文是旨在变量评估取消制度或者保留制度的辩论,增乳艾礼富文德尔福尔摩斯所说:“历史的篇章是值得用逻辑推敲的。对历史的回顾保持沉默的权利,在不同的时间点上拥有的这一特权,应该对该位置提供一些观点。”拉丁词“‘nemo tenetur prodere seipsum”意味着追溯到罗马时代,没有人能够在公共场所背叛他自己。
n of a law in force, and
2) No person shall be tried for the same offence more than once nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
This draft provision was adopted by the sub committee on 15th April 1947 and incorporated in this report to the Advisory Committee as Clause 27. When the Advisory Committee took, up this clause for consideration on 22nd April 1947, Rajagopalachari remarked that it was not necessary to put in the usual principles of
criminal law, which the clause embodied, as fundamental rights in the Constitution. Shri Munshi replied to it by saying that while it was true that generally criminal laws were passed by the Legislature, the clause was intended against a specific grievance. An act that was not an offence at the time it was committed might after six months or so be regarded as an offence by a Legislature by now. Without further discussion, the Advisory Committee adopted the clause as recommended by the sub committee and embodied it as Clause 20 of the annexure to its interim report to the Constituent Assembly. The Drafting Committee then considered Clause 26 of the Constitutional Adviser's Draft Constitution on November 1, 1947 and held that the intention of the second part of Sub-clause (2) was only to prohibit compulsion of an accused to be a witness against himself and if that intention was made clear, the additional words proposed by the Constitutional Adviser would not be necessary. The committee split up Sub-clause (2) into two independent clauses - the farmer dealing with double jeopardy and the latter with self-incrimination. So amended, the provision appeared in the Draft Constitution as Article 14, which is as follows:
1. No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law at the time of the commission of the offence.
2. No person shall be punished for the same offence more than once.
3. No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be witness against himself.
As aforesaid the matter was then debated in the Constituent Assembly and after considering the brief reply to the debate by Dr. V.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Constuent Assembly, the assembly accepted the amendment moved by Krishnamachari and Thakurdas Bhargava and ultimately the draft articles as amended was included in the draft Constitution. Later on, at the revisional stage the Drafting Committee renumbered it as Article 20 and it reads thus:
1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
The 180th Law commission report has enumerated various facets of the right to silence namely: -
Burden on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty
Presumption of innocence of the accused till proven guilty
Right of the accused
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。