#1
When someone talk about due process, or receiving their “due”, they are usually referring about something that they feel is rightly allowed to them. In fact, that is specifically the historical meaning of due process. Ever since antiquity, every society has had some perception of it. That’s because the perception of due process differs and diverge widely from society to society (Galligan, 1996). The basic scheme stays steady, but how much a person feels rightly permitted to depends on the historical and cultural context in which they live. Due process is united to custom, which can diverge even among regions or localities within a nation. Customs are the regular habits and non-religious rituals of a local people. Customs along with folkways (proverbs and symbols) and norms (guides for behavior) make up the sociological definition of culture. The extent of due process among the customs of a people is the hallmark of a civilized or decent society. Due process generally refers to the regularity, fairness, equality, and degree of justice in both procedures and outcomes (Galligan, 1996).
The inkling of due process in law seems to have materialized only in societies which practiced the accusatorial, or adversary, system. Societies which practiced the inquisitorial system kept people in jail for long periods of time without letting them know the charges, and suspects were often bound and obliged to plead guilty or testify against themselves.
Fairness and justice is the perception of doing what’s best. It may not be perfect, but it’s the good and well-brought-up thing to do. It requires being level-headed, standardized and regular, when all around you is prejudice, corruption, or the desire of an angry mob to see justice done. Fairness requires breadth and depth. Not only does the outcome have to be fair, but so does everything along the line such as evidence gathering and presentation. Fairness is difficult to put in the form of strict legal rules and principles that cover every situation.
On a practical level, there’s less of a peril to the whole legal system. If your system is convicting a few innocent, chances are it’s railroading many of the culpable, so you’ve got two problems on your hands — those who are falsely imprisoned and those who have a stronger habeas corpus claim (Kadish, 1957). If your system is letting a few guilty slip through, chances are that those lucky evil-doers might change their ways, or in any case, law enforcement or informal methods of social control can pick up the slack (Mashaw, 1985). However, on the more important theoretical level, it depends on what kind of system you want to have — one that just rolls over people indiscriminately — or one that is individualized and takes into account the need for your society to expand freedom.
On legal and political matters there are no laws nor conventions nor pressure of any kind, which demand that the media provide balanced coverage of events. They were given the freedom to be committed or uncommitted, biased and be propagandist, it is clear that the media can be very potent in the political process in Australia, this according to Solomon (1984). The primary relying factual information between untrained persons in the sensitive issues of criminology and criminal justice, they are untrained in the art of interpreting criminal statistics and untrained in the ability to question certain theories and .
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment