英语论文网

在印度使用替代性纠纷解决机制解决纠纷

这个19世纪简单而深刻的声明似乎影响了刑事司法系统的性质多年,因此,法律委员会在其142报告中自行决定检查引起刑事审判和上诉处理延迟的问题异常。委员会重申单向解决方法，通过其154报告允许那些没有任何讨价还价认罪的人优惠治疗，换句话说,就是允许便辩诉交易。Malimath委员会在2003年刑事司法改革报告也指出辩诉交易的积极方面要在案件负载中大量地减少,从而申明了法律委员会的建议。

那么辩诉交易究竟是什么?在其最传统和一般意义上的词意是指审理前被告之间的谈判,通常由律师和检方引导，被告同意认罪以换取检察官的某些让步。它有两个方面。一个是“讨价还价”指检察官为了减少或消除一些指控而做出承诺以换取被告认罪。第二个是“求情减刑”指的是检察官做出劝告特定的交换或避免做任何判决建议的承诺来换取认罪。

This simple yet profound statement made in the 19th century seemed to have influence the nature of the criminal justice system for years to come, so much so, that the Law Commission in its 142nd Report suo moto decided to examine the problems arising out of abnormal delays in the disposal of criminal trials and appeals. The one-directional solution proposed by the Commission reiterated through its 154th Report was to allow for concessional treatment for those who plead guilty without any bargaining in other word to allow for plea bargaining. The Malimath Committee Report on Criminal Justice Reforms 2003 has also noted the positive aspect of plea bargaining to be the significant reduction in case loads thereby affirming the Law Commission’s recommendations.

So what then exactly is plea bargaining? In its most traditional and general sense of the word it refers to pre-trial negotiations between the accused, usually conducted by the counsel and the prosecution during which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecutor. It has two facets. One is “charge bargaining” which refers to a promise by the prosecutor to reduce or dismiss some of the charges brought against the accused in exchange for a guilty plea. The second one is “sentence bargaining” which refers to a promise by the prosecutor to recommend a specific exchange or to refrain from making any sentence recommendation in exchange for a guilty plea. [3] It is, therefore, an alternative to conducting a full criminal trial in court by offering a solution to the conflict in court, and as such is an integral part of the broad and inclusive idea of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter referred to as ADR). [4]

The ADR mechanism refers to dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside the traditional judicial process and the more common forms include arbitration, Mediation, negotiation and conciliation. The growth of these alternative mechanisms has to be viewed in light of some of the shortcomings that the traditional judicial process entails. The increasing case load on traditional courts, the perceived advantages over the traditional judicial system such as lesser costs of litigation, quicker settlement of disputes, a preference for confidentiality, the parties’ preference to choose who would adjudicate their dispute etc. are some of the reasons for the tremendous success for such alternative forums. [5] These forms of dispute resolution have been mostly confined themselves to the contours of civil law i.e. disputes pitting one private party against another. The use of ADR processes in criminal matters is a relatively new phenomenon in Western countries and owes its origin to the general dissatisfaction with the traditional adversarial methods of adjudication. Resolution of the legal conflict between the prosecution and the accused out of court in a criminal proceeding under the Anglo-American system of justice is achieved mainly within the framework of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。