Language
Country/Area
No result found
Why do criminal trials in some countries surprise you? The shocking differences between the Anglo-American and continental legal systems revealed!
Criminal proceedings are the trial process of criminal law. Although the criminal process varies widely across jurisdictions, in general, the process begins with a formal criminal charge, where the parties may be free on bail, or imprisoned, and eventually lead to a conviction or acquittal of the defendant. The forms of criminal proceedings can be divided into interrogative or adversarial systems.
Currently, in many democratic and rule-of-law countries, the criminal procedure places the burden of proof on the prosecution, which means that the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant is guilty and cannot defend the defendant on the grounds of reasonable doubt, a principle known as the presumption of innocence.
This principle of presumption of innocence is protected by law in several countries. For example, under Article VI of the European Convention on Human Rights, all 46 member states of the Council of Europe are required to abide by this principle. In practice, there are differences in the way countries treat this principle.
Basic Rights
Each defendant is entitled to a number of fundamental rights, which include the right to be informed of the charges against which he or she is arrested or charged and the right to appear in court within a reasonable time after his arrest. In addition, many jurisdictions allow defendants the right to legal counsel, and public legal aid will also provide legal services to defendants who do not have sufficient economic strength.
Distinction between criminal and civil cases
The distinction between criminal and civil procedures in Anglo-American legal system countries is very clear. In the UK, for example, criminal courts can impose fines on convicted defendants and even cover the legal costs of the prosecution, however no compensation is usually paid to the victim. Victims are required to pursue their claims for compensation in civil litigation. In contrast, in continental legal countries such as France and Italy, victims of crime can receive compensation in criminal courts.
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", while in civil proceedings, the evidence required by the plaintiff must only meet the standard of "proof of merit."
Differences between criminal and civil procedures
Some clear distinctions between criminal and civil procedures result in different protections for the rights of victims in different legal systems. While some legal systems allow private prosecutions, usually criminal action is initiated by the state, while civil action is initiated by individuals. In the context brought about by Anglo-American law, it is usually the prosecution that brings criminal proceedings, while the plaintiff in civil proceedings is an individual.
The operating model of the criminal law system
In criminal cases in the United States, the charges brought against a woman named Sanchez may be referred to as "America v. Sanchez", while in the UK it would be expressed as "R. v. Sanchez." Obviously, countries differ in how they name cases, and this reflects the characteristics of the legal system.
The important point is that evidence in a criminal case is not necessarily admissible in civil proceedings and vice versa, meaning that even if the person accused is acquitted in a criminal case, the victim still has to prove his case in civil court.
Differences between continental law and Anglo-American law
Most countries with civil law systems follow an interrogation system, where judges are required to actively investigate the facts and evidence of litigation. In the common law system, the judge presides over trials under the adversarial system, with lawyers on both sides preparing arguments for the case and submitting them to the court for ruling. These different forms of legal conduct each have their own insights into the safeguards of the rights of defendants, and for those who believe they are innocent, these differences in procedures undoubtedly have a profound impact on their fate.
In this case, how exactly should legal protection and the needs of social fairness and justice be balanced?
