Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
crime control vs. due process
crime control vs. due process
Due Process vs. Crime Control
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: crime control vs. due process
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.
One of the benefits of due process is demonstrated in the Belshaw case. The inquisitorial system of justice is based on crime control; the Swiss police had a hard time in Canada with Mr. Belshaw, because of his right to due process, under Canadian law. Both systems of justice share common beliefs, for example, they both look for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Canada we fight about facts and laws, where-as the inquisitorial system searches for the facts. The adversarial system has a separation of powers with the police, crown, defense, and the judge. It is quite different for the inquisitorial system of justice, the police do the arrest, then they present the facts to crown, which then decide if they have a case and turn over the evidence to the judge. The only problem is that the judge decides what will lead them to the truth. How any evidence was collected is irrelevant. In due process if the police obtain evidence and violate the law or a persons charter of rights and freedoms the judge will exclude the evidence from the hearing, even if it would help or prove that the person is guilty. These two systems of justice are generated in democratic traditions.
In the case of Alois Dolejs the crime control model, was swift and took the criminal off the streets. The police had a lot of circumstantial evidence, for example, bloody cloths and two different types of blood. On the advise of his attorney, he was instructed not to disclose the location of the bodies, until after the trial.
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
The Criminal Justice System and its agencies encounter challenges while trying to perform their daily activities. The system deals with laws involving criminal behaviour. It dwells on three major agencies: the police, courts, and the corrections. Each agency has its own specific and important roles to contribute to society. This paper will explain both the roles and challenges each agency unfortunately battles.
Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse informants, eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, inappropriate, professional and institutional misconduct and scientific limitations that society possessed prior to the technological revolution (Roberts, Grossman, 2012, 253 – 259). The introduction of more advanced DNA analysis has been able to clear names and prevent these incidences from occurring as often. As well as the formation of foundations such as The Association of Defense for the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). Unfortunately, mistakes made in the Canadian Justice System have serious life altering repercussions for everyone that is involved. Both systematic and personal issues arise that require deeper and more intense analysis.
Early in the 17th century was when the first modern day policing was expected to have begun. Ever since the 18th century begun, incidences of police using excess force by abusing their power have been quite common. As time progressed, these wrongful actions by police have been entitled as police brutality. Police brutality is defined as" the use of excessive force used by police dealing with public... excessive force can be either physical, verbal, and/or psychological". According to this definition, whether it be arresting someone with too much force or even uttering certain statements, can all be classified as police brutality. No individual should be victimized by police officers who use excess force that in no way deters crimes. It does nothing but bring a dire unjust society in which innocent people can feel afraid; and give those officers who are correctly doing their duties a bad reputation. Due to the dispensable, unscrupulous nature of police brutality; several measures including disciplining police officers, stricter laws(and stringent penalties), integration, as well as educating the general public about their rights, must be applied in order to extirpate the misconduct citizens should not have to face.
When examining criminal justice systems it is important to note two important criminal justice models, the due process model and the crime control models. Most governments function based on several aspects from each criminal justice model; these crime models were initially introduced by Herbert Packer in 1968 (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). The due process model in the criminal justice system reflects the formal decision making process and highlights the importance of ensuring the criminal justice system works upon reliable knowledge (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). The crime control model is based on efficiency and ensuring crime is repressed as much as possible; this model promotes bargaining and often encourages defendants making deals with
The overall basis for a democratic society is freedom. We stress that freedom allows us to be individualistic. Herbert L. Packer, a law professor, charted out two ideas in our criminal justice system. The idea or crime control and due process are ideally two separate entities, but have been found in our criminal justice system to overlap (Barkan, 2012). Due to the fact that these two ideas overlap, causes tension within our democratic society. These ideas cause there to be a double edge sword. As stated in our textbook, “the more crime control we want, the less due process we have; the more due process we have, the less crime control we can expect.” (Barkan, 2012). Ideally, we would like to live in a society where everyone is treated equally regardless of race, gender, social class, etc. However, police have the difficult task of making sure arrests are made unbiased.
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 Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my observations to the bail court. What I found is a systemic evidence of a two-tier justice system. In this essay, I will outline the roles of the 'regular players' of the bail court and demonstrate how the current bail process essentially transforms the Canadian Criminal Justice System into a two-tier system where the affluent and powerful are able to receive preferential treatment over the poor.
No community in Canada comes into conflict with criminal justice system officials more disproportionately than Aboriginals (Dickson-Gilmore, 2011, p.77). Indeed, Aboriginal Canadians are often subject to both overt and unintended discrimination from Canadian law enforcement due in large part to institutionalized reputations as chronic substance abusers who are incapable of reform (Dickson-Gilmore, 2011, p.77-78). One of the more startling contemporary examples of this is the case of Frank Paul; a Mi’kmaq Canadian who was left to die in a Vancouver alley by officers of the Vancouver Police Department after being denied refuge in a police “drunk tank”. Not surprisingly, this event garnered significant controversy and public outcry amongst Canada’s Aboriginal population who have long been subject to over-policing and persistent overrepresentation as offenders in the Canadian criminal justice system (Jiwani & Dickson-Gilmore, 2011, p.43 & 81).
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,
Violent crime in Canada is on the rise in Canada as well as the types of
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 ...
In the year 1970, the Canadian government founded the Law Reform Commission of Canada to ensure the progression of law making and to make recommendations for legal changes . The Law Reform Commission of Canada is constantly importing and suggesting proposals towards the criminal code of Canada. During the year of 1985, t...
The two models of crime that have been opposing each other for years are the due process model and the crime control model. The due process model is the principle that an individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. ( Answers.Com) Any person that is charged with a crime is required to have their rights protected by the criminal justice system under the due process model. The crime control model for law enforcement is based on the assumption of absolute reliability of police fact-finding, treats arrestees as if they are already found guilty. (Crime control model) This paper will compare and contrast the role that the due process and crime control models have on shaping criminal procedure policy.
There are different principles that makeup the crime control model. For example, guilt implied, legal controls minimal, system designed to aid police, and Crime fighting is key. However one fundamental principle that has been noted is that ‘the repression of criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal processes’. (Packer, 1998, p. 4). This is very important, because it gives individuals a sense of safety. Without this claim the public trust within the criminal justice process would be very little. The general belief of the public is that those that are seen as a threat to society, as well as those that fails to conform to society norms and values should be separated from the rest of society, from individuals who choose to participate fully in society. Consequently, the crime control model pro...