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.
It will then weigh the evidence and ultimately determine if the evidence satisfies the criminal offenses that the defendant has been charged, beyond any reasonable doubt. Numerous and varied rules often surround the jury. The jury mainly focuses on criminal cases because these cases put a person’s liberty at risk. Defendants do not have a right to jury trial if their jail term does not exceed six months. All jurors need to recognize the fact that jury service is a critical duty of citizenship.
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 aspect of wrongful conviction is established within law to protect the innocent from being abused by the law. Nevertheless, the real issue of concern is the fact of whether wrongful conviction actually helps those who cannot help themselves.
Appellants were charged with the murder of Allen Slix, contrary to s. 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After the trial judge made a finding that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the murder of Allen Slix, appellants brought a motion challenging the constitutional validity of s. 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That section provides that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.6 The Ontario Court of Appeal, on an appeal brought by the Crown, found that the police officers had violated the Liptons presumption of innocence in s. 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Crown appealed and a constitutional question was stated as to whether evidence collected in a search is admissible for a conviction of murder, in concerns to a violation of s. 11 (d) and s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Inherent in this question, given a finding that s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated, was the issue of whether or not an infringement of s. 11 (d) a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for the purpose of s.1 of the Charter.
Canadian courts deal with both civil and criminal law, regardless of the crime Canada was a way in which they deal with it, this brings reassurance to us that justice will be served to those needed. It also shows society what happens when a criminal act is done, hoping that there will be no reoccurrence. Those who have decided to live against the law and challenge the safety of others in the society. Our criminal courts deal with two types of offences. One is the less serious and the other is indictable offence, the more serious.
Judge Sparks' decision, as upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, set a precedent for the future recognition of critical race theory's thicker conception of truth which recognizes the presence of racism in the criminal justice system. Bibliography Aylward, Carol, Criminal Race Theory Litigation (Halifax: Fernwood, 1999). "Canadian Critical Race Theory: Racism and the Law." CJS Online. Online.
Introduction One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial.
He must vigorously prosecute individuals reasonably suspected of significant criminal activity, but must avoid harassing or disturbing innocent citizens. In weighing these fac-tors, he is obligated to look beyond the immediate problem of winning a case and consider in-stead the fair and efficient administration of criminal justice. There’s too much pressure on the criminal justice system because it is supposed to solve socie-ty’s ills. One of the greatest challenges facing the criminal justice system is the need to balance the rights of the accused criminals against society interest in imposing punishments on those convicted of
The underlying foundation of this analysis is that contempt of court must be balanced with the openness principle because accurate and fair courtroom reports are an integral part of the due administration of justice. Contempt of Court, Generally Contempt addresses behaviour, actions, and publications that interfere with, or create a real risk of interfering with, the due administration of justice. It regulates a range of human activities that pose a risk of such interferenc... ... middle of paper ... ...contempt were formed but rejected on the basis that codification would have made an unnecessarily restrictive offence even more restrictive. Then, in 1984, a bill was introduced which would have codified much of the law of contempt. The bill was never enacted and nothing has happened since.
The law was created to serve the creator and oppress the conquered. Baldwin poses that white people have no moral ground on which to stand because of their robbery of Black peoples’ liberty, and that the power that they possess is a criminal power, to be feared but not respected, and most importantly outwitted. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in Letter from the Birmingham Jail, also makes clear why some laws must be broken. “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” The law was never made with the freedom Black people in mind, therefore it must be broken in order for any semblance of liberty to be