Dear Colleagues,
Why, in the absence of a defense on the part of the accused, is an indictment filed against them accepted as true (and then they are convicted)? It is necessary to distinguish between two possible cases:
1. Accusing the accused of having committed some act that constitutes a crime (and then the question being discussed is whether the accused did or did not commit the crime) and the accused did not defend themselves (and then, in the absence of a defense, it turns out that the accused did not deny what was attributed to them and therefore should indeed be found guilty).
2. Accusing the accused of having committed some act for which there is still no certainty as to whether it constitutes an offense or not (and then the question being discussed is whether the act they committed constitutes or does not constitute an offence) and the accused did not defend themselves (and then, in the absence of a defense, it turns out that the accused did not deny what was attributed to them; however, it is irrelevant because what determines whether they are guilty is not whether they committed or did not commit the act, but whether the act they committed constitutes or does not constitute a crime).
@yaniv Hozez,
The propriety of conviction of an Accused absent a defense to the charge hinges on whether there was in fact constitutionally sufficient time and facilities provided to the accused to enable him defend himself against a criminal indictment.
This is the foremost principle that forms a scaffold around a determination of guilt of an accused.
It is in fact a function of Fair Hearing to the extent that the Accused is and must be seen to have been given ample opportunity to defend himself.
What the accused does with it should impact the determination of guilt in the given case. However, this is subject to the towering constitutional principle in the laws of Evidence that an Accused is Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty.
The Absence of his defense is not ipso facto evidence of his guilt. It follows that the Prosecuting or indicting authority must present a a cogent cognizable criminal case that rises to the level of a Prima Face case that will justify an impartial tribunal to call on the defendant to respond to the allegations.
In scenario One, the principle of Fair hearing and sufficient opportunity, time and facilities to mount a defense is paramount and it determines whether a conviction is sustainable in law.
In the same vein, on a preliminary basis, the fact that defendant did not specifically deny the charge should not be the equivalent of a clear, & unmitigated admission or Confession to the allegations, unless, to the extent where the prosecuting authority has made out a prima face case and the defendant having being called to defend himself, spuns the opportunity and refuses to deny them.
In scenario two, the foremost constitutional safeguard that "No One can be Prosecuted for an act that did not clearly constitute an Offense under the Law," applies here.
It follows that where the criminality of an action is disputed and there is no answer to the question of whether that act runs afoul of the law, there cannot be a constitutionally valid Criminal proceedings against that action or the person responsible for that action.
That much is clear.
This principle specifically frowns against retroactivity of criminal laws against actions that were not clearly established offenses under the law at the time the alleged act was committed.
Thus, it is inconsequential that the defendant did not deny the "allegation".
The defendant cannot deny an allegation of criminal activity that does not constitute a prohibited criminal action under the Penal Laws.
Hope this answers your question.
The existence of a defense is one of the basic rights that the accused enjoys, although this does not preclude him from committing the crime and thus convicting him.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology