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. His silence was what got the conviction that sent him to prison. The police didnt know that he had actually committed the crime. Due process could of set a guilty man free.
The Case Of Susan Nelles. This case is a good example of what effects the crime control model of justice can have on an innocent persons life. The police reacted to the deaths with a crime control mentality. The police prosecuted a woman on the basis of their biases and emotions. The sad part is, even though Susan was entitled to due process, it destroyed her life and consequently killed her father. The right to remain silent is protected under the charter, and the due process model of justice. The police leaked the story to the press, to publicly tri this woman. A principal fear in the due process model came to light. An innocent person was harassed and convicted not in a courtroom but publicly; this is a clear case of, a miscarriage of justice.
The James Keegstra case is a good example of a weakness of due process; this case has been going on for too many years. The charter of rights and freedoms, section 2.b guarantees us fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication, but as in this case, those rights are not absolute. It wasnt what he was saying, it was how he saying it and where he was exercising his free speech .We do have the right to free speech. Due process worked in this case. If I was the crown in this case I would of charged him under section 319. (1), (2), (3), he was in my opinion, targeting the Jewish faith, and chose to persecute them in a public setting, mainly a school. The supreme court of Canada ruled against him.
The Donald Marshall Case is an example, of the evil of crime control. Even due process failed to work for Mr. Marshall. The police officer that conducted the investigation should have gone to prison. I still believe in the due process model of justice, for one thing, most people who work in the criminal justice field are honest and only bring their best intentions of enforcing the law with them to work. However for the corrupt few, that still hold positions of trust in the Canadian justice system, due process will continue to extract them from the ranks, one by one.
The common goal of both models of criminal justice is to convict the guilty and set the innocent free. Crime control and due process share four common values which are, (a) crime should only be defined by law, (b) crime should lead to some form of legal intervention, (c) criminal justice system power should be legally limited, (d) criminal justice system should be adversarial. The case studies presented good ideas to argue crime control and due process concerns. Principal fears expressed by both models had an effect on real people, and it scared me to think that certain mentalities do exist in this country. Though some innocent people do go to jail, it doesnt even come close to what injustices would happen in this county, if both models didnt compliment each other in some fashion, to identify what the meaning of justice is in Canada. The justice system will continue to be under fire by those whos primary goal is to rewrite the law, to meet their current ideologies and beliefs. The four things you need to get ahead in Canada are, class, age, race and religion. After completing sociology 101 and 102, it is hard to convince me that many social injustices have not occurred and will continue to do so. I will still vote for the due process model of criminal justice. In closing, I think we need both ideal types of criminal justice. Some crime control and a lot of due process.