Analysis of Doctrine of Benefit of Doubt Apropos to Criminal Philosophy

Abstract

In our country, it is observed that the conviction rate is low, and it is the lowest if we talk about rape. A person who is accused of rape charges mostly gets acquitted because of the doctrine of benefits of doubt. Moreover, even in the case of gang rape, rape of minor the predators are not convicted because of the doctrine of benefit of the doubt. Thus, this paper revolves around the concept of the doctrine of benefit of the doubt and expounds on the pros and cons of this theory with respect to criminal philosophy. This paper mostly focuses on rape and the benefit of the doubt and tries to show that it is unjustified to use it in every case and using it every time can lead to miscarriage of justice. This paper also talks about the epistemic and testimonial injustice in rape cases that is happening around the world. It is observed that the complaint of rape is mostly not lodged because of the conventional mindset of people, and even if the victim gathers the courage and lodges the complaint the trial continued for months. During this phase, the victim is pressured to change her statement and several manipulations are done. After this tedious and long-time, our criminal justice system demands to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which stands totally unreasonable. Because of the pressure and epistemic injustice proving beyond reasonable doubt becomes a myth, and the theory of benefits acts as a catalyst in causing the miscarriage of justice. The paper also makes a comparative analysis with most of the countries’ the trial law and discusses the India’s condition in this aspect. Thus, the main question which this paper raises is whether the theory of benefit should be used in all of the cases and whether this theory is causing miscarriage to justice. At last, the paper also gives certain suggestions pertaining to the topic.