NCJ Number
225388
Date Published
2008
Length
9 pages
Annotation
In this chapter, the author attempts to show how, despite the existence of a review mechanism in the Israeli criminal justice system, a general attitude exists that judicial errors and mistakes rarely happen, thus defending what one may call the “sanctity of the criminal law.”
Abstract
Examination of the process in Israel, even after the amendment of the Court Law in 1995, reveals that the Supreme Court places considerable importance on the attitude and recommendation of the Attorney General regarding requests for retrial. By leaving the review process in the hands of the system, any change will not increase the chances of an error being detected and thus an innocent person being exonerated. Those familiar with Israeli criminal law are under the impression that amending several sections in it is almost impossible, even when there is public outcry, and even when public inquiry committees recommend doing so. In addition, when certain amendments are being adopted in the right direction, one would still confront a wall of resistance, mainly from the side of courts and prosecutorial authorities, when trying to give them practical meaning. Criminal law in Israel is in many ways an exception; it suffers from many deficiencies and from a great deal of unwillingness to admit its own errors to an extent that makes some wonder about the sanctity of the criminal law. But, according to the Israeli judicial tradition, the Israeli courts do not err. Criminal procedures do have built-in formal legal mechanisms that allow the review of a case. Appellate review represents both a safeguard for the individual accused and an opportunity to elaborate on the rights of the individual, or the possibility that an error has occurred somewhere along the process. This chapter discusses the Israeli criminal justice system and the review mechanisms that exist to correct errors. It identifies one of the major constraints as the problem of denial, the opinion that such errors rarely occur, and the strong tendency to defend “the sanctity of the criminal law.” Notes, references, and cases cited