What is justice?

I want to answer the question in this article. But it is very difficult to say what justice is in legal terms because very few we know about justice.We can only know justice from the practical examples of injustice. Then we would study some practical cases to see what injustice is so that our definition will become a practical one. Let’s see some cases:

Australia

1] Twelve-year-old Nell Alma Tirtschke left home on an errand for her grandmother. Early the next morning, her body was found in Gun Alley. She had been raped and strangled. Ross was convicted on the basis of several witnesses who testified that Ross confessed to them as well several strands of blonde hair on a blanket at Ross's house. In 1993, a former school teacher named Kevin Morgan began researching Ross's case. Morgan found a file in the Office of Public Prosecutions containing the original hair samples, which had been thought lost. In 1998, two independent scientific authorities - the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the forensics division of the Australian Federal Police - found that the two lots of hair did not come from the same person, thereby disproving with certainty the most damning piece of evidence presented at Colin Ross's trial. Colin Ross was pardoned on May 27, 2008, 86 years after his execution

2] Brewer was the great-granddaughter of industrialist and philanthropist Sir Macpherson Robertson and was heir to MacRobertson's chocolates. Brewer was killed by an intruder with a tomahawk and scissors in her beachside apartment. Beamish, who is deaf and mute, lived near Brewer. He signed a confession, which he claimed he signed under duress. It was later determined that Brewer's murder was likely committed by Perth serial killer Eric Edgar Cooke, who confessed to the murder prior to his execution. Another man, John Button, was also convicted of murders assumed to be committed by Eric Edgar Cooke

Canada

1] Harder was murdered by being shot several times in the chest and buried in a shallow grave near some railroad tracks. Police suspected Driskell of the murders because Harder implicated Driskell in a series of break-ins. The prosecution presented three hairs from Driskell's van that they argued belonged to Harder. A later review by the Forensic Science Services in England determined that none of the hairs belonged to Harder. It was later discovered that a key police witness, Ray Zanidean, tried to recant his testimony. In exchange for his testimony, police made a deal with Zanidead that he would not be charged in an arson case. He also received payment for his legal fees and received money for mortgage payments that were in arrears. He also received $20,000 payment. This information was not disclosed to the jury. Although he has not been formally exonerated, he was released on Nov. 24, 2003.[20]

2] Donald Marshall and Sandy Seale, then both 17 years old, had been walking around Wentworth Park in Sydney, Nova Scotia during the late evening with the intent to "roll a drunk" as stated at Marshall's trial. They confronted an older man they encountered in the park named Roy Ebsary. Seale was stabbed to death. Police speculated that Marshall had murdered Seale and he was convicted on the basis of witness statements.[21][22] Several years later, a witness came forward to say he had seen another man stab Seale, and several prior witness statements pinpointing Marshall were recanted. A year after the appeal, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal declared him not guilty of the murder. In its ruling, however, the court opined that Marshall was “the author of his own misfortune”, essentially blaming him for the conviction.[23][24][25][26]

A 1990 royal commission of inquiry criticized that finding as “a serious and fundamental error", blaming police incompetence and “systemic racism” for the conviction (Marshall is Mi’kmaq). His case led to widespread changes in Canada's evidence disclosure rules. Prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense in the Marshall case; the prosecution must now fully disclose to the defense any evidence it has in its possession. Ebsary was subsequently tried and convicted of manslaughter.[21]

France

Outreau affair

he "Outreau affair", which concerned an alleged criminal network in Outreau, a working class town next to Boulogne-sur-Mer in the Pas-de-Calais region, began in November 2001. The first trial took place in Saint-Omer in 2004, and the appeal took place in Paris in 2005.

Eighteen people were accused. Mostly parents, they were charged with child sexual abuse and incest and their children were separated from them for much of this time. The affair began when some school teachers and social workers noticed “strange sexual behavior” from four children in a local school. Psychologists believed the children to be credible witnesses, but doctors found no evidence of sexual abuse.[2] The parents were accused on the testimony of some of the children, which was then backed up by the confessions of some of the accused.

The defendants were held in custody for from one to three years. In the first trial (in 2004), four of the eighteen admitted guilt and were convicted,[2] while seven denied involvement and were acquitted. Six further defendants denied the charges but were convicted and given light sentences[clarification needed] – they appealed their convictions, and were heard by the Paris Cour d'assises in autumn 2005. On the first day of the hearing, the prosecution's claims were destroyed, and all six were acquitted.[3] Another defendant died in prison while awaiting trial.[1]

The first trial

The appeal took place before Saint-Omer's Cour d'assises, composed of three professional judges and nine jurors.

The case involved an alleged ring of 17 persons, with the charges based on one woman's evidence and some corroborating statements from alleged victims. The alleged offenders were condemned on the grounds of certain adults' and, most of all, the children's testimony, together with psychiatric evidence. The children's testimony took place in "huis clos" (behind closed doors); such a procedure is normal in France for victims of sexual abuse, especially minors.

The six convicted persons who denied any responsibility appealed their convictions.

The woman who had given much of the evidence later confessed in court she had lied, and the children's revelations were found to be unreliable. Only four of the accused ever confessed, all the others insisted on their innocence: one died in jail during the investigation,[1] 7 others were acquitted during the first trial in May 2004, the last 6 during the second trial on the evening of December 1, 2005.

The second trial

The appeal took place before Paris' Cour d'assises, composed of three professional judges and twelve jurors, used as an appellate court for review of both facts and law.

On its first day, the prosecution's claims were dismissed, owing to the statement of the main prosecution witness, Myriam Badaoui, who had declared on November 18 that the six convicted persons "had not done anything" and that she had herself lied. Thierry Delay, her former husband, backed up her statement. During the trial, the psychological evidence was also called into question, as it appeared biased and lacking in weight. The denials of two children, who admitted that they had formerly lied, also contributed to the destruction of the prosecution's claims. One of the psychologists said on TV: "I am paid the same as a cleaning lady, so I provide a cleaning lady's expertise," which caused further public indignation.

At the end of the trial, the prosecutor (avocat général) asked for the acquittal of all of the accused persons. The defence renounced its right to plead, preferring to observe a minute of silence in favor of François Mourmand, who had died in prison during remand. Yves Bot, general prosecutor of Paris, came to the trial on its last day, without previously notifying the president of the Cour d'assises, Mrs. Mondineu-Hederer; while there, Bot presented his apologies to the defendants on behalf of the legal system—he did this before the verdict was delivered, taking for granted a "not guilty" ruling, for which some magistrates reproached him afterwards.

All six defendants were finally acquitted on December 1, 2005, putting an end to five years of trials, which have been described by the French media as a "judicial foundering" or even as a "judicial Chernobyl".

Remaining sentences

Four people remained convicted after the appeal trial: Myriam Badaoui (who had not appealed her conviction), her husband, and a couple of neighbours. Myriam Badaoui, her husband, and one of the neighbours confessed that they had wrongfully accused other people to have been involved in the abuse cases, whereas only the four of them had been involved.[4]

Myriam Badaoui was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison, her husband to 20 years.

Germany

1] Rudolf disappeared on his way back from the local pub one night in October 2001. Local rumors spread that the Rupp family killed the unlikeable Rudy, who had a history of drinking excessively and fighting. Police had no evidence in the case, but eventually coerced confessions from the family that they had bludgeoned him, dismembered him, and fed him to the pigs. No physical evidence was found, but they were convicted. In 2009, Rupp's body was found intact behind the wheel of his Mercedes in the Danube river in an apparent car accident

Hungary

The Mór bank robbery was the most notorious of such crimes in Hungary. On May 9, 2002, seven customers and a security guard were gunned down in a bank in the small town of Mór, northwestern Hungary. In 2004, Ede Kaiser was sentenced to life for the murders, and László Hajdú was sentenced to 15 years for being an accomplice. In 2007 police caught László Nagy, who was wanted for the 2003 murder of a mailman in Veszprém. Nagy admitted that he, along with another man, Róbert Weiszdorn, committed the murders in Mór and the weapons used for the murders were found in his apartment. In 2008 Weiszdorn was sentenced to life, with a possibility of parole after 40 years, while Nagy committed suicide in police custody. Kaiser and Hajdú were acquitted in 2009, and Kaiser was sentenced to 18 years for unrelated crimes.

Iran

Sahaaleh was convicted for "crimes against chastity" for being involved in a sexual relationship with a 51-year-old married man named Ali Darabi. Sahaaleh claimed she was raped by Darabi multiple times over the course of 3 years and then tortured into confessing. During her trial, she removed her hijab, an act seen as severe contempt of court, and argued that Darabi should be punished, not her. The judge sentenced her to death. Darabi was sentenced to 95 lashes.[40] 2004

Unbeknownst to her parents, documents presented to the Supreme Court of Appeal described her as 22 years old. Her birth certificate indicated her age was 16. Amnesty International and other organizations declared her execution to be a crime against humanity and against children of the world.

Israel

1] n June 1948, during the Israeli War of Independence, Meir Tobianski, a major in the Israeli army, was arrested on charges of spying for the Jordanians. The Chief Military Prosecutor's order to detain and interrogate Tobianski for 10 days was ignored; instead, he was subjected to a drumhead court-martial. He was found guilty on circumstantial evidence, sentenced to death, and executed by firing squad on June 30, 1948. Later, an investigation resulted in Tobianski's posthumous acquittal. Intelligence chief Isser Be'eri, who was largely responsible for Tobianski's execution, was later put on trial and found guilty of manslaughter.

2] In 1980, Azat Naffso, a former IDF intelligence officer of Circassian origin, was arrested for espionage, after it was discovered that one of his contacts in Lebanon had been a double agent for Fatah. Naffso was interrogated and subjected to various forms of torture to extract a confession. After 14 days, Naffso confessed, and was tried before a military court in 1981, convicted, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. In 1987, he appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his confession had been extracted illegally and that the prosecution had presented fabricated evidence. The Supreme Court judges cleared Naffso of most of the charges and sharply criticized Naffso's interrogators, accused them of perjury, and of not taking reasonable measures during his interrogation. A plea bargain was reached, under which Naffso agreed to plead guilty to exceeding authority creating a national security risk. Naffso's sentence was reduced to 2 years and a demotion to the rank of Sergeant, and as a result, he was released immediately. The Naffso affair was one of the reasons the Landau Commission, set up to investigate methods used by Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, was set up. Naffso subsequently filed a compensation claim against the state, and reached a compromise under which he would be given $1 million in compensation and pledge not to publicly reveal details of the case.

Italy

1] London-born Kercher was studying in Italy when she was found murdered in the home she shared with Knox. Knox, who was from Seattle, her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and Ivorian-born Rudy Guede were charged with the murder. Forensic evidence, including DNA from feces at the scene and fingerprints linked Guede to the scene, but the cases against Knox and Sollecito were controversial. Knox and Kercher were acquainted with Guede, but Knox and Sollecito claim they were at Sollecito's house at the time of the murder. Prosecutors argued Kercher was killed as part of a sex game gone wrong.[44]

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Cassation overturned the previous guilty verdicts, definitively ending the case.[45][46][47][48] Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was not enough evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder and were innocent of those charges.[47][49] According to Vedova, the decision by the five judges was almost unprecedented. Guede's conviction still stands.[

Mexico

In March 2006, six plainclothes agents of Mexico's Federal Investigations Agency (AFI) raided a market in Santiago Mexquititlán, Querétaro, in search of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. During the raid, the six AFI agents were cornered by a number of unarmed vendors in protest. The agents later claimed that the vendors demanded a ransom to let them go. Local witnesses to the incident denied any ransom demand was made. Jacinta Francisco Marcial, an indigenous Otomí woman, sold ice cream in Santiago Mexquititlán's predominantly indigenous tianguis. The six AFI agents who conducted the raid implicated Francisco Marcial after they were shown a newspaper photograph depicting her walking near a group of protesting vendors. In August 2006, four months after the raid, she was arrested for the alleged kidnapping. She was later convicted and sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment. Two other women were convicted as well.

Amnesty International denounced Francisco Marcial's imprisonment as resulting from a wrongful prosecution. The group declared her a prisoner of conscience, claiming there was no credible evidence against her, and that she had been prosecuted because of her gender, poverty, race, and inability to speak or understand the Spanish language.

In 2009, prosecutors dropped the case against Francisco Marcial. In September 2009, she was released. As of September 2009, the two other women convicted of the same charges, Alberta Alcántara and Teresa González, remain in prison.

New Zealand

Arthur Allan Thomas, a New Zealand farmer, was twice convicted of the murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe on June 17, 1970. He spent 9 years in prison but was given a Royal Pardon, and was released and awarded $1 million compensation for wrongful convictions. A Royal Commission in 1980 showed the prosecution cases were flawed, there was a high possibility police had deliberately planted a cartridge case in the Crewes' garden to use as evidence, and ignored evidence that pointed to another suspect. The prosecution had also denied alibi and witness information to the defense team.

Norway

The Liland affair was a Norwegian murder trial, for the 1969 double murder in Fredrikstad, which gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.

It started in December 1969, when two men were found murdered with an axe in the Norwegian town Fredrikstad. In 1970 Per Kristian Liland was convicted for both murders. Already in the same year, the married couple Sten and Vibeke Ekroth started to collect information to the benefit of Liland, and private investigator Tore Sandberg eventually joined the quest to exonerate him. The Supreme Court of Norway rejected a retrial in 1976, but after having served the sentence he was released in 1993 and acquitted by the Eidsivating Court of Appeal in 1994. Liland won a legal battle for monetary compensation in 1995, but died in 1996.[1]

The affair became a grave[citation needed] embarrassment to the Norwegian criminal justice system.

Spain

The so-called Wanninkhof case happened in southern Spain with the murder in 1999 of 19-year-old Rocío Wanninkhof. After a jury trial conducted in a very charged atmosphere convicted Dolores Vazquez, a friend of her mother, of the murder, new DNA evidence appeared which proved the true killer was Tony Alexander King, an English expatriate.

The Crime

The afternoon of 9 October 1999, 19 year-old Rocío Wanninkhof said goodbye to her mother, Alicia Hornos, and left her home to go visit her boyfriend, Antonio José Jurado, who lived nearby in the town of Mijas, Málaga in Andalusia.

At about 9:30 PM she said she would go home to take a shower and agreed to meet him again later at the fair in Fuengirola. After this she was not seen again.

The next day her mother told her other daughter, Rosa, to go to ask Antonio where Rocío might be. Antonio said he had not gone to the fair the previous night because he fell asleep but that he knew some of her friends had seen her there so he imagined she had just spent the night with one of her friends.

The mother was restless and decided to go out for a walk during which she found blood and clothes which apparently belonged to her daughter Rocío. She immediately notified the police, who cordoned off the area and a search began but Rocío could not be found.

Police Investigation

The police centered their suspicions on six suspects, the boyfriend Antonio being the prime suspect but after questioning he was cleared. Another suspect was Dolores Vázquez who had been a close friend and lover of Alicia, the mother. Her calls were monitored and she was under surveillance.

After more than three weeks, on 2 November, the body of Rocío was found in a different place than where she had been attacked and murdered. The criminal had attempted to burn the body so that it was quite damaged and it could not later be determined if she had been sexually attacked but it was determined that she had been stabbed once in the chest and eight times in the back.

Dolores Vázquez became the prime suspect and she was questioned repeatedly but never admitted any wrongdoing. To the contrary, she proved she had been at home taking care of her mother and of her niece and had made some phone calls which were proven by the phone company.

But the murder had provoked alarm in the local people who demanded a quick resolution and the police indicted Dolores.

Trial

The trial was done with a popular jury which is a system with no tradition in Spain and which is being newly implemented. So far several jury trials in Spain have led to scandalous verdicts. Most factual evidence exculpated her but the prosecutor relied heavily in attacking the character of Dolores and her lesbian relationship with Rocío's mother Alicia. The judge did not intervene to curb such misconduct. In the end the verdict repeated word for word the prosecutor's allegations and found Dolores guilty of the murder of Rocío. All this was conducted in the middle of a media circus and feeding frenzy.

Dolores appealed and the higher court agreed and declared the case should be retried.

While she was in prison awaiting her new trial, in August 2003, there was a similar crime when 17-year-old Sonia Carabantes disappeared. In their investigation of this case the police discovered DNA which matched DNA found at the scene of the murder of Rocío. A woman soon told police that she suspected her ex-husband and when the police questioned him it was soon discovered that it was, indeed, his DNA. His name was Tony Alexander King and he was an English expat who, with his wife and daughter had come to live in southern Spain. It turned out he had a long criminal history and had served time in England for sexual crimes before changing his name and settling in Spain.

Dolores' upcoming trial was first suspended and then the case was closed and she was set free having been 17 months in prison.

In 2005 Tony Alexander King was sentenced to 36 years in prison for the death of Sonia Carabantes and to an additional seven years for an unrelated sexual attack he had committed. In 2006 he was found guilty of the death of Rocío Wanninkhof and was sentenced to 19 years in prison for that crime.

So from these cases it is clear that injustice results from police and prosecutions. The police often under pressure try to frame the wrong guy. They fabricate the evidence/ witness and lie on stand. They are the starting point of injustice and the court just believes in police and prosecution and convicts the wrong guy.  Police does this because media and people want a quick remedy of the crime. Court also tries to give quick judgment due to same pressure.  So they rely on police.

Injustice occurs yet on another front.  The front of lawmaking under pressure is yet another place of injustice.  The following cases will prove this point:

1] The criminal law amendment act 2013 was created under tremendous pressure from both feminist group and women rights activist group. Media is another pressure group. The law is based on the assumption that men are by nature bad guy and therefore all of his activity towards a woman, for example, stalking, videoing, taking photos etc. is crime. This law had been misused by women to settle score with men ever since. It violated rule of parity since it treats two similar cases (the fallibility of men and women) in different way (fallibility of men and infallibility of women). This resulted in violation of principle of natural justice as the court does not hear the man’s side properly.

2] Juvenile justice act 2015 is yet another law created under tremendous pressure from media and women’s right activist. This act treats 16 year old kids as 18 year old adult completely ignoring the maturity level of understanding of the 2 classes. This law violates the rule of parity as it treats two different cases (kids and adult) in similar way (adult).

3] The 498A section of IPC does not provide any specific evidence of mental torture of women by men. Therefore if women say that men torture them mentally, that very statement becomes an infallible truth. This section was also inserted under tremendous pressure of women rights group and media in 1983.  This means a reversal of burden of proof.  Women don’t have to prove their mental torture, only men have to prove their innocence.  

4] Rape laws are so amended under pressure that medical examination of women, the only credible evidence of rape, is not mandatory now. It means reversal of burden of proof. It means injustice.

So from above cases it is clear now that injustice occurred in law in 2 ways:  wrongly conducted investigation under pressure and secondly wrongly made law under pressure. So pressure is the common element in both cases.

So what then would be justice?

Well justice is just the opposite of injustice. It means absence of pressure.  All kind of pressure must not be there. Under pressure justice is not done. One such pressure is media trial. This is the evil one.  It builds public opinion and thereby creates public pressure on both police and court and on lawmakers.  And anything done under pressure, be it investigation, trial or lawmaking, is bound to be unjust. We must stop media and activist groups from creating pressure on judiciary so that justice is done.  This is justice, in its true and realistic sense.