Crime Control Or Due Process Model

This essay seeks to investigate what models of justice were present within 3 hours that I observed the Brisbane district court on the 24th of august. To begin, the observations I made will be explored in order to gain my understanding of the court processes. Through these observations and relevant academic sources this essay will determine whether or not it was a crime control or due process model of justice, or both, that was present in the court.

Court Observations

On the 24th of August I attended the Brisbane District courts for 3 hours in courtroom 25. The public gallery where I sat was at the back of the room, followed by a booth for defendants, desks for representative professionals and finally at the front of the room the judge’s

Unlike crime control, the due process model has the ability to take factual and guilt into consideration with other evidence, whether or not this evidence was gathered lawfully and whether any mitigating factors exist. Due process’s ability to distinguish between factual and legal guilt and its assumption that mistakes do occur within the CJS presents the biggest differences between the two models. Key foundational principles that so often characterize due process relate to every individual’s right to a fair trial, legal representation and the presumption of innocence. It is in this sense that due process has been likened to that of an obstacle course, as it implements a number of procedures designed to protect the rights of offenders arguably hindering justice itself. An example of due process is the upholding of documents such as Human Rights Act of

Whilst due process is a complex model of justice, some of its key principles include the right to a fair trial and the right to legal representation. The right to legal representation is not only included under the due process model but also multiple human rights documents and is defined as an individuals right to personal representation by someone declared legally competent in a court of law. The extensive efforts made by the court I observed to ensure that every individual on trial had the right to legal representation at the very beginning of their hearing reflected a clear value in the correct criminal procedures so meticulously followed by the due process system. The fact that these efforts to ensure that legal representation was organized for the defendant as well as rescheduling for the hearing presented the characteristically slow process that due process model subsequently creates, and crime control refuses to