Miscarriages of Justice in Criminal Courts
A preliminary discussion on universal jurisdiction
I want to discuss the background of contemporary universal jurisdiction and then make some remarks about how I view the possibility of strengthening and making universal jurisdiction more present in our contemporary societies.
I’m always conscious of the potential for miscarriages of justice in courts of law, particularly in criminal courts. A miscarriage of justice is a case in which an innocent person is convicted, or a guilty person is given a sanction disproportionate in harshness to the serious to the seriousness of his or her crime.
Of course, I believe in good Criminal Courts and think there is an important place for universal jurisdiction, but I must say that I start with the preliminary idea that criminal processes, even in the best courts, are subject to defects and errors.
It is our job not only to create courts and give them jurisdiction but also to ensure sufficient barriers to convictions so that the number of miscarriages of justice is minimized.
We must always be conscious
- that even the best system
- can never eliminate
- all the potential defects in adjudicating.
This applies to International and state courts exercising local jurisdiction and, of course, universal jurisdiction.
Thus, I approach the idea of jurisdiction with a sober sense. One must know that the theory of the law is never purely found in the operation of the law and that we must be careful in subjecting people to jurisdiction because of the potential for miscarriages.
That’s just a personal statement, which I think will be reflected.
