“In absentia” refers to a trial or conviction without the defendant present. It is generally considered unconstitutional in the US, but allowed in other nations. Trials without the defendant present deny their right to a fair trial. Exceptions include voluntary absence or a break in court. Some regions conduct trials for non-citizens or fugitives. Verdicts without a defendant are often unenforceable until they are found or extradited.
“In absentia” is a legal term meaning “in absence”. Legally, it refers to a trial or conviction that occurs without the defendant being present. In the United States, trials in absentia are generally considered unconstitutional, but many other nations and some international laws allow for the trial and conviction of defendants without their presence.
There are several arguments against in absentia trials. One of the main arguments suggests that convicting or trying a defendant without her presence denies him his basic right to a fair trial. Without being present, the defendant cannot file a motion, testify on his own behalf, or consult a lawyer. Many laws and judicial precedents state that the defendant must be present at every stage of a trial that may involve her rights, including an indictment, a plea hearing, and a conviction. If the defendant is not present at these crucial moments, there is no one to protect his rights from infringement, which may lead to the cancellation of the entire proceeding.
There are some exceptions to the law in absentia even in regions with strict guidelines requiring the presence of a defendant. For example, in some areas, if a defendant voluntarily chooses not to appear at a trial after it has begun, such as by fleeing the region, he or she may be subject to a trial and verdict in absentia. Also, if the defendant causes a break in court after a removal notice, he can be taken away to allow the trial to continue uninterrupted. Absence decisions may also be allowed in minor cases when the defendant provides written permission for the trial to continue in her absence.
Regions without laws in absentia often conduct trials for defendants who are not citizens, those whose whereabouts are unknown, or even those whose whereabouts are suspected but have not yet been caught. At the Nuremberg war trials, for example, many well-known leaders of Nazi activities were convicted in absentia by the court. Fugitives are often subject to this type of trial, although it is unusual for a country with default laws to extradite a defendant to a country that has convicted him without due process.
While considered a violation of individual human rights and due process in some regions, other regions argue that justice does not always require the defendant’s physical presence, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence. The verdicts of trials that have no defendant are not only sometimes despised as unfair, but are also generally unenforceable until the convicted defendant is found or extradited. Those convicted in absentia generally have to take precautions to avoid visiting territories governed by their accusers, but many can live in total freedom in other parts of the world.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
