Part V Rights and Freedoms, B Rights and Freedoms under the Charter, Ch.38 The Charter and Criminal Justice

Author(s):  
Stuart Don

This chapter analyses the pervasive impact of the Charter on the Canadian criminal justice system. Active judicial interpretation of Charter rights has put in place distinctive constitutional standards of substantive law, including those of fault, and struck down oppressive laws for arbitrariness and overbreadth. Also examined are new standards for police powers to stop, search, detain and interrogate, fair trial rights such as the duty of full Crown disclosure, and for assessing mandatory minimum sentences. This chapter describes and welcomes a robust exclusionary discretion for evidence obtained in violation of the Charter. It is suggested that the Canadian Charter standards are no panacea and are sometimes too weak but that they have often provided a welcome balance to the expedient lure of law-and-order politics.

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
Olga Kosevaliska

Abstract The right to a fair trial is implemented in our criminal procedure and is one of the core values of our criminal justice system. This right is absolute and can’t be limited on any legal base. Its essence is fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court with guaranteeing of all the minimum rights of the defendant. One of those minimum rights is the right of equity of arms between the parties, the prosecutor and the defense. In our Law on Criminal Procedure, it is provided that the defense has the same rights and duties as the prosecutor except those rights that belong to the prosecutor as a state authority. Therefore, the purpose of this article is elaborating the right of ‘equity of arms’ and its misunderstanding in practice. Hence, we intend to show some case studies in which some evidence are not considered by the court just because they are not proposed by the prosecutor and they are crucial for the verdict.


Author(s):  
Brett Curry ◽  
Banks Miller

The pervasiveness of their influence arguably makes prosecutors the most consequential actors in the American criminal justice system. Armed with discretion over which cases to pursue, what charges to file, and which issue areas to prioritize, prosecutors play a decisive role in determining what progresses from investigation to the courtroom. It is their charge to do justice in each case, but that obligation hardly forecloses the influence of politics on their decisions. Despite their centrality, however, prosecutors and their behavior have failed to garner even a fraction of the attention that scholars have directed toward law enforcement, correctional systems, or judges. The discretion of American prosecutors is theoretically immense; there are few formal constraints upon it. If a federal or state prosecutor declines to pursue a case that has been referred to him or her, that declination decision is essentially immune from judicial review. But these formalisms come with more practical limitations. At the federal level, United States Attorneys are appointed by the president and, therefore, are expected to carry out an administration’s general policy priorities. In the states, most district attorneys answer to the electorate, which imposes its own constraints on a prosecutor’s freedom of action. Chief prosecutors—state and federal—are simultaneously principals to their subordinates and agents of the people or the president. If those considerations were not enough, American prosecutors must be mindful of still other factors. How might their actions today impact their future career paths? What influence might legislative changes, public opinion, or judicial rulings have on how they operate? Scholarship on prosecutors has addressed some of these questions, but we still lack a good understanding of all the ways in which politics infects prosecutorial decision-making. As “progressive prosecutors”—many who are former public defenders—continue to win office, new questions will arise about how far prosecutors can push reform of the criminal justice system. A major looming question is how voters conditioned to law-and-order rhetoric will evaluate the new prosecutors. Some preliminary work shows that non-White prosecutors tend to reduce rates of incarceration, while Republican-affiliated prosecutors increase them.


Author(s):  
Stephen Farrall ◽  
Will Jennings

This chapter explores the Thatcherite legacy for crime and the criminal justice system. We argue that, despite much of Thatcher’s rhetoric on ‘law and order’, most criminal justice activity during her period in office was essentially liberal (that is, progressive) in nature. Nevertheless, the social and economic policies pursued in the early to mid-1980s were, we argue, associated with rises in the crime rate, which in turn shifted public attitudes towards crime and the treatment of offenders. Coupled with the Labour party’s shift rightwards from the early 1990s and Blair’s focus on crime as a topic Labour ‘owned’ meant that both the Conservative and Labour parties were engaged in a crime ‘arms race’ towards policies which were in tune with the Thatcherite instinct on crime.


Author(s):  
C. Ogwezzy Michael

AbstractIt is established that certain constitutional safeguards are enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to ensure the fair trial of accused persons in criminal matters. A breach of any of the constitutional safeguards will vitiate a trial and may consequently nullify the entire proceeding depending on the degree of breach. It is argued in this paper that, English language is the official language of all the courts in Nigeria and if the language is not understood by the accused person standing trial in a criminal matter, an interpreter should be provided, failure upon that, their right to a fair trial would have been breached. Though t


2018 ◽  
pp. 136-161
Author(s):  
Insa Lee Koch

Chapter 5 looks at how housing estate residents interact with the police in negotiating the dangers of ‘the street’. Government policies that go tough on ‘law and order’ have focused on young people’s involvement in street-based activities, invoking a language of ‘gang crime’ and ‘gang membership’. However, this language does not easily fit with residents’ own understanding of the dangers of the ‘streets’ that encompasses both the threat of daily victimization and the failures of the criminal justice system. This chapter argues that the daily threat of serious crime alongside mistrust in the police generates seemingly contradictory responses. Residents sometimes appropriate the police as personalized tools into everyday disputes with friends, kin, and neighbours. Meanwhile, in situations of more serious threat, they tend to fall back onto informal mechanisms of policing that the state outlaws as vigilante violence. It is precisely this gap between citizens’ expectations for support and the reality of police performance that is expressed when residents show support for harsher punishment in a system that has become ‘too liberal’ and ‘soft’.


2020 ◽  
pp. 65-104
Author(s):  
Joshua Dubler ◽  
Vincent W. Lloyd

Chapter 2 tracks the way American political elites talked about justice and punishment before and during the rise of mass incarceration. The authors show how these concepts were once closely connected with the religious imagination. When that link was severed, justice was reduced to the proper functioning of the law, to a criminal justice system, and a new set of ideas and institutions promoting law and order and victims’ rights took over. The chapter demonstrates how, at the level of political rhetoric, religion—along with economics and race—was essential for promoting incarceration as the sole mechanism for effecting justice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document