Chapter 1 Discussion week 1
Do you feel that Canada 's criminal justice system is more a reflection of the crime control model or the due process model? Do you think that crime measures that have been introduced by the government will lead to a reduction in crime rates? What issues stand out for you?
I feel that Canada’s criminal justice system is more a reflection of the due process model than the crime control model. I feel that in Canada, the emphasis is on protecting the legal rights of the accused. The due process model limits the powers of criminal justice officials and the system believes that this is the best way to protect the rights of the accused. All level of our court system operates in an adversarial system where the system has a separation of powers with the police, crown, defense, and the judge and I feel that this system complements well with due process model. I think that the police would lean towards crime control model and the courts will lean towards due process model. Timing could also change which model we lean towards. For example, after 9/11 attack, I am sure everyone feared for their safety and there was an imminent threat to our national security. In a time where threat of our national security level is high, people will tend to lean towards crime control model.
I do think that crime
…show more content…
We have to give the rights to the offenders and give them a fair trial but at the same time, we have to look after our victims and our society as a whole. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime and repeat offenders should be punished tougher. We also have to look at why people commit crimes and offer proper rehabilitation programs in order to reintegrate offenders back into our society. I will discuss further on restorative justice approach in the next
In today’s Canadian society, it is certain that criminal law is to serve and protect and its fundamental purpose is to prevent crime and punish offenders. However, there have been cases where criminal law has punished the offender who turned out to be innocent. A conviction is needed to show that the system is not in disrepute and to keep order and people safe in society. If a criminal cannot be caught then people will look down upon the system in disgrace. In many cases, officers will arrest an individual who fits a certain description that they know will lead to an arrest and conviction. In the case of Guy Paul Morin it shows how the system failed in aiding the innocent who abide to the law. The law is established to protect those who are innocent from being targeted because of the law.
The Canadian justice system is organized into the police, courts and prisons (Goff, 2013, p.295). When a crime is committed it is up to the justice system to insure that justice is served.
Crime control and due process are two different ideal types of criminal justice. One could say they are extremes on a continuum. The role of crime control is to get the criminal off the street and to protect the innocent. The due process model of criminal justice is like an obstacle course, you have to keep going through legal obstacles to ensure in the end you convict the right person. In Canada the police lean toward crime control and the courts lean toward due process. This causes tension between the police and the courts. I will argue for both crime control and due process, putting more weight on due process If we did not have due process in Canada, people in positions of power, could manipulate the system for their own personal or political gain and railroad the innocent off to prison.
Griffiths, C. T. (2007). Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer (3rd Edition ed.). Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
If given this prompt at the beginning of this semester I would have answered with a resounding yes, the criminal justice system is racist. The classes I have previously taken at LSU forced me to view the criminal justice system as a failed institution and Eric Holder’s interview in VICE - Fixing The System solidified that ideology. The system is man-made, created by people in power, and imposed on society, so of course there will be implicit biases. The issue is that these internally held implicit biases shaped the system, leading the racial and class disparities. VICE – Fixing The System addressed heavily the outcomes that we see in today’s society based on these implicit biases. Additionally, this documentary focuses on the ways that mainly
In response, the court system for many years has tried to formulate the policies that will address the issue of public confidence. In the Roberts’ article, it is suggested that even though a slight majority of Canadians have trust in the justice system, the citizens seem to have more faith in institutions other than in the courts (159). This difference is mainly because of the perception that the public has on the justice system in regards to its practices (Roberts 164). The public appears dissatisfied with some practices of the court leading to decreased confidence in the system. For instance, most Canadians feel that the justice system failed to reduce crime in the country. Instead, they argue that it is among the primary causes of increased crime rate (Roberts 164). Most citizens claim that allowing a guilty person walk free is worse off when compared to convicting an innocent one (Roberts 171). Boosting public confidence is, thus, critical to improving the criminal judge. Apparently, this can be accomplished as mentioned by Anthony N. Doob in the article, increased engagement of an ordinary citizen in the courts is needed,
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
Improved economy helped Canada’s rate of crime decrease since the 1990’s but different evidence suggests that methods used in response to serious crimes during that time may have influenced the crime trends. The Constitution Act of 1867 contains the authority to enact criminal laws and procedures to be followed by the federal government (Welsh & Irving, 2005). First enacted in 1892, the Criminal Code, continually revised, is used for setting out two main categories of offense: indictable and summary conviction, indictable being homicide and robbery, more serious kinds of crime with involved trials (Welsh & Irving, 2005). Canada is also known for its Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and these police ...
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
Canada is a country where rehabilitation has been a formal part of sentencing and correctional policies for an extended period of time (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Furthermore, a group of Canadian researchers have examined the methodology and effectiveness of rehabilitation, and are principal figures in the correctional rehabilitation field (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). However, despite rehabilitation being a central aspect of Canadian identity, there has been a shift in the justice system’s objectives. The rise of the Conservative government and their omnibus bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act, has created a move towards retribution. Bill C-10 was passed on March 12, 2012 (Government of Canada, 2013) and was a proposal to make fundamental changes to almost every component of Canada’s criminal justice system. Law changes included new and increased mandatory minimum sentencin...
Within the legal system, there is the Canadian criminal justice system, which is meant to guarantee the safety of citizens within the country and is used to sustain social control and deliver justice for a society. The criminal justice system is made up of many components that are constructed to ensure justice for victims of crimes along with criminals. It is designed to guarantee that punishing those who are guilty will protect the innocent. Within the criminal justice system, there is a document that consists of all the jurisdictions of criminal law. This document is called the criminal code and entitles the offences that are acknowledged in the jurisdiction along with consequences that are enforced for these crimes. Throughout the years, there are offences constantly being added to the Criminal Code of Canada and many proposals being made by the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
Criminal Justice is composed of many lateral departments that help us define and better understand how crime can come about in our society. Crime can be learned and used to help one satisfy their personal gain and utilized to replace what is missing. Crime can be reduced by developing rules that enhance the social support that is needed to help families and the community educate them to keep their surrounding safe. By implementing custodial control and punishment can deter some crime but not eliminate it altogether. The criminal justice system is not a system that will stop crime but more of guidelines that come with committing crimes. Our society deserve to live in a safe and healthy environment and by providing policies and rules that help regulate criminal activity will ensure our society that crime will be prosecuted and carried out to the fullest.