Criminal procedure

Criminal procedure is the way that courts handle cases where someone is accused of doing something wrong according to the law. This process can look different in different places, but it usually starts when a person is officially told they are suspected of a crime. At this point, the person might be allowed to wait at home with some promises to appear in court, called bail, or they might be kept in a special building until their court date, called incarcerated.

The goal of criminal procedure is to decide if the person did what they are accused of. This decision can end in a conviction, meaning the court decided the person did it, or an acquittal, meaning the court decided the person did not do it. There are two main ways these decisions are made: one is called inquisitorial, where a judge leads the search for facts, and the other is called adversarial, where two sides argue against each other in front of a judge or jury.

This process is important because it helps make sure that people are treated fairly when they are accused of breaking the law. It includes many steps to protect the rights of everyone involved, from the person accused to the people who say the crime happened. The whole process is part of the criminal law and is managed through a series of official steps called the adjudication process. For those interested in games, there is also a video game called "Criminal Case," but it is different from real criminal procedure.

Basic rights

In many countries with fair and democratic systems, the process of handling crimes makes sure that the person accused has important protections. The main rule is that the side bringing the charges must prove the person did something wrong, and they must show this clearly without any reasonable doubt. This idea, called the presumption of innocence, means the person is treated as not guilty until proven otherwise.

Everyone accused of a crime has the right to know what they are accused of and to see a judge quickly after being arrested. They also have the right to have a lawyer help them, even if they cannot pay for one. The government will provide a lawyer for those who need it.

Difference between criminal and civil cases

Countries that follow common law usually separate criminal and civil cases clearly. In a criminal case, like in an English criminal court, the person found guilty might have to pay a fine or face other punishments, but they usually don’t have to pay the victim directly. The victim would need to start a separate civil action to ask for compensation.

In criminal cases, the proof needed is higher because the person might go to prison. In English law, the person accusing someone of a crime must show they are guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." In a civil case, the person only needs to show it is "more likely than not" that the other person did something wrong.

Criminal cases are almost always started by the state, while civil cases are usually started by individuals. In criminal cases, the state is called the prosecution, and the person they are accusing is called the defendant. In civil cases, the person starting the case is called the plaintiff, and the other person is the defendant.

Differences between civil law and common law systems

Most places that use civil law have a system where judges actively look into the facts by checking evidence during the trial. Other judges may also help by writing reports.

In places that use common law, the judge oversees a process where the two sides—the people accusing someone of a crime and the person defending themselves—present their arguments in court. This is called the adversarial system of dispute resolution. Some civil law places have started using this kind of process too.

People who support each system often think it protects innocent people the best. In common law countries, some believe that civil law or inquisitorial systems might not always assume someone is innocent until proven guilty, or give the defence enough rights. On the other hand, in countries with inquisitorial systems, some think that the adversarial process may help people with more money who can hire better lawyers, and may not treat poorer people fairly.