Due Process or Crime Control
The battle between social control and the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens can be seen in the Canadian Criminal Justice System of today. Many criticize policing institutions of possessing excessive power where others feel that they do not have enough. Some feel the police do too little where the others feel police are too much of an interference. The question of when it is acceptable to sacrifice social freedoms in hope of overall comes down to the question of which is more effective: due process or crime control? Is what more police what Canada needs to deal with its delinquents or is it more of the enforcing of our rights freedoms that is more important. This controversial issue plays a major role in the Canadian Criminal Justice System as it must come to a delicate compromise of social control and due process. Audi Alteram Partem (Herbert Broom) in English translates that no one should be condemned un heard. This statement resonates throughout the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ultimately dictates the importance of due process: the system that protects the rights of the accused while maintaining fairness. These system of laws in turn limits the powers the government can impose on its citizens ensuring protection of their fundamental rights; even if arrested. Though the right of the victim is important, the right of the accused is equally important as one is presumed innocent until proven guilty under the Canadian Criminal Justice System. This ensure those in power , whether it be judge or police, are held accountable for their actions providing a consistent yet fair result in all cases. Overall the safeguards imposed by due process maintain that no one be wrongly convicted should the government have not properly followed all lawful procedures. A clear example of due process in play could be seen in the case of R. v. Buhay [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631, 2003 SCC 3. where the judge had found that the police had violated Buhay's