Witness Protection: A Comparative Analysis of Indian and Australian Legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Witness plays a very important role in the criminal justice system. The outcome of any trial is based on the testimony witness. Without his assistance Court could not sumup with a judicious decision. However, it has been seen in various instances that witnesses turn hostile during the course of a trial. The main reason behind hostility is that the witness is threatened and being pressurized by the accused or his family members to offer testimony in his/her favour. This has turned to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there is a need to adopt a proper and effective witness protection policy in the country. In light of the above issue, the Central government had notified a Scheme called Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. Although the scheme was adopted in full enthusiasm and zeal it has not served its purpose. There are various countries like USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Canada, etc. who have incorporated witness protection program in their domestic laws. The witness protection program in Australia is serving its objective by providing protection to the witness in their country. This research paper is based on a comparative study of the witness protection program in India and Australia to identify the possible outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".