Criminal Profiling: Framing of Charges Upon Sexual Offences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In criminal profiling in cases involving sexual offences, the charges must be drafted with a great degree of precision. Every sexual offence has its individual elements that need to be fulfilled before a charge is preferred. There are instances where the defects in charges are rendered to be fatal to the prosecution’s case and instances where Section 422 comes to aid and cures the irregularities in the charge. The objective of this research is to identify the common features that render a charge defective in cases related to sexual offences, the effect of the defects. It also aims to analyse the courts’ approach to determine whether the particular defect is fatal or curable and suggest solutions in handling defective charges to achieve the ultimate purpose of ensuring that justice is served and eliminating any prejudice towards the victim accused. Generally, charges for sexual offences are rendered defective when the charge fails to specify the kind of act which constitutes the alleged sexual act and the related provision. In order to achieve the objectives of this research, qualitative research was conducted through library research, case studies and data analysis. The possible solutions to handle a defective charge would be to determine whether a particular defect in itself would cause a miscarriage of justice by misleading an accused and stripping off the rights of the accused to defend himself. Since the purpose of a charge is mainly to notify the accused, as long as the defect in the charge did not mislead the accused in defending himself, the defects are considered mere irregularities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".