The due process modelThe due process model focuses on having a just and fair criminal justice system for all and a system that does not infringe upon constitutional rights. Further, this model would argue that the system should be more like an 'obstacle course,' rather than an 'assembly line.
If the Crime Control Model resembles an assembly line, Packer says, the Due Process Model looks very much like an obstacle course.
Packer developed two key models – the due process and crime control models of criminal justice. The due process model prioritises the interests of the individual suspect who is confronted by the mighty power of the State.
Herbert Leslie Packer (1925 – December 6, 1972) was an American law professor and criminologist. His key work is the book The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968), which proposed two models of the criminal justice system, the crime control model and the due process model.
The major difference between the crime control model and the due process model of law enforcement is that crime control works to repress criminal activity, and due process works to protect a person's rights.
The crime-control model emphasizes the standardized, expeditious processing of defendants through the court system and the uniform punishment of offenders according to the severity of their crimes. Under this model, arrest and prosecution tend to imply guilt.
Assembly Line Justice is a term used to describe the extremely rapid processing of cases by lower courts, often without due concern for defendants' rights.Jul 19, 2021
A criminal justice system may draw on four approaches to control and punish lawbreakers. These approaches are: deterrence, retribution, incarceration, and rehabilitation.May 8, 2020
Professor Packer proposed that there are two fundamental criminal justice models: the crime control model and the due process model.Oct 9, 2021
The wedding cake model theory of criminal justice was developed by Samuel Walker and provides an overview of how different types of cases move through the legal system.Dec 17, 2018
In inviting readers to share his ‘ world view’ of criminal procedure, Richard Vogler has contributed another confident critical voice to the rising chorus of scholars expressing dissatisfactions, of varying degrees and descriptions , with the current state of comparative criminal justice studies. Bemoaning the ‘ poverty and parochialism of contemporary approaches to the understanding of criminal justice systems and the theoretical problems which may arise in the absence of any truly comparative or global perspective’ , Vogler promptly confronts his colleagues with this pointed challenge:
Part II of A World View of Criminal Justice examines ‘ The Adversarial Tradition’ of criminal procedure, starting with its Anglophone historical origins in England and America in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The outstanding virtue of A World View of Criminal Justice is the scope and detail of the factual information it digests. Vogler’s discussion of the relatively well-documented procedural systems of western Europe, occupying Part I of the volume, extends far beyond the standard treatments to be found in comparative law textbooks or policy-orientated publications with a predominantly reformist agenda. The roots of the modern French and German systems are traced back to their medieval origins, and the evolution of ‘ The European Inquisitorial Tradition’ is painstakingly charted via the Imperial Carolina (1532) and the Code Louis (1670) to its apotheosis in Napoleon’s monumental Code d’Instruction Criminelle of 1808. Vogler observes:
In order to describe and evaluate the Canadian criminal justice system, two particular models have been developed: crime control and the due process models. By evaluating the political implications of the Charter on the criminal justice system, this essay will accomplish four objectives. First, it will describe the framework in which these models operate and explain their theoretical purpose. Secondly, it will establish the metaphor and complexities of the two models. Thirdly, it will argue for the advantages of the Due Process Model. Finally, concluding that the shift from crime control to due process, supported by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is an improvement on Canadian criminal justice system.
Prior to 1982, the confessions of the accused needed only to be relevant and reliable. After 1982, there was a concern for unreasonable search and seizure and the right against self-incrimination under sections 8 and 10 (b) respectively.
The exclusionary rule in Canada is listed under section 24 (2), which states that illegally gathered evidence is inadmissible if its admission would discredit the administration of justice. As we will see later, if the evidence is real and not self-incriminating and yet obtained in an illegal way, it can be admissible.
Legal guilt refers to the “‘dignity enhancement’ rationale for greater procedural constraints on law enforcement” (86, Manfredi), which means the court can use various Charter provisions to protect the accused and to safeguard the credibility of the criminal process, making it more difficult to perceive legal guilt.