NCJ Number
78056
Date Published
1978
Length
28 pages
Annotation
Canadian and American societal responses to crime are compared, using an historical overview and an examination of how each country deals with the issues of right to counsel and illegally obtained evidence.
Abstract
The two countries are compared within the frameworks of the 'due process' and 'crime control' models of law enforcement conceptualized by Packer (1964). The models differ significantly in the rights accorded individuals involved with the criminal justice system. In the due process model, which has its roots in the Enlightenment, emphasis is on the use of the law in defense of 'natural' and 'inalienable rights.' Accordingly, the due-process model is concerned with exclusionary rules of evidence, the right to counsel, and other procedural safeguards deemed useful in protecting accused persons from unjust applications of criminal sanctions. The crime-control model, on the other hand, is conceptually based in the conservative reaction to Enlightenment thought, notably in the arguments of Edmund Burke and others, that civil liberties have meaning only in orderly societies. The crime-control model focuses on the repression of criminal conduct, arguing that until this is effectively done, the personal freedom of the masses is endangered. Canada comes closer to the crime-control model, while the United States, at least formally, is more in accord with the due-process model. The historical forces influencing the emergence of these different law enforcement models are identified, and the two countries' approaches to right to counsel and the legal status of illegally obtained evidence are compared, along with crime statistics of the two countries. Twenty-five notes and 60 references are listed.