Procedural law requires notice and a hearing while substantive due process is governmental objective. Basically, substantive due process has to do with very specific fundamental rights of citizens’ while procedural due process is when a citizen is not awarded the proper procedures under law. Substantive due process is additional to procedural due process. Procedural law is the analysis of how law is administrated while substantive is an individual analysis of the law. Procedural law has to do with both criminal and civil law.
Is procedural or moral justice applicable for this aim? Based on theories of inclusive of behavioral, societal and interpersonal psychology, the most influential to reducing recidivism is that of restorative justice. Moral justice reflects the perceptions and moral values of its social structure else face not only resistance to comply but a reduction in the social perception regarding the legitimacy of their authority. The major differences between the current justice model and restorative justice models is a shift in focus from satisfying generalized social justice to satisfying micro-justice as well. This has allowed greater involvement for victims regarding procedures, requirements for restitution and a voice in sentencing as well as opportunities to communicate with the offender in a personal manner (Cialdini, 2007).
Our current system of substantive justice, under the rule of law does not guarantee that individual cases will be decided upon in accordance with an individual 's conceptions of justice. However, the system of procedural justice can guarantee that a plaintiff will have a fair opportunity to present their case and it will be decided upon by an impartial judge and the court of public opinion will make none of these guarantees. Whereas if the court of public opinion was in place the plaintiff would be able to gain the sympathies of the public, something which has nothing to do with
They ensure that decisions are taken objectively, impartially, without prejudice, and after hearing the person likely to be affected.” It is absolutely imperative to conform to the principles of natural justice during the course of a case proceeding else the entire concept of the judicial system is negated. This being so as, the
Equality in justice is a fundamental principle of a democratic system and the Constitution protects individuals from unfair treatment; nevertheless, there is evidence that shows how this principle is not always followed. Finally, criminal procedures act as safeguard against an indiscriminate application of criminal laws and treatment of individuals suspected of crime, and the main safeguards regarding criminal procedure are found in Amendments IV, V, VI and VIIIs. Hopefully the information provided within this paper has served as an initial insight into the roles of ethics in justice. As it seems that the entire criminal justice functions by the rule of ethics and different ethical rules lead to very different judicial outcomes, it is important to use the theory of ethics are a guide for applying them in specific judicial contexts in accordance to the fundamental principles of freedom and
Due process is the fair treatment of the judicial system by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This is the constitutional guarantee that one will be given the opportunity to be heard before they are deprived of their life and (discharge from all restraints or obligations unless convicted). (Schmalleger 631-632) And also guaranteed that the law will not be unfair in anyway and that the government will not in any way deprive any person(s) of their constitutional rights. The reason that due process is so important in the American criminal justice system is because it is a social justice a belief of right and wrong. Due process is based on the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, the constitutional amendments are to make sure that a person cannot be accused of a crime without a grand jury investigation, they have the right to an attorney and a person should not be deprived of life.
The basis of the criminal justice system is ethics: It’s what helps them develop the moral reasoning need to perform their duties. Ethics also helps them determine criminal activities, and it is what society believe is acceptable punishment. It’s an important matter because our criminal justice system is most effective
Trial 3. Post-trial (A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System by Wan Arfah Hamzah published 8th December 2011) 1.1 Why Criminal Procedure Rules Matter The rules of criminal procedure are extremely important to defendants because they are designed to guarantee constitutional due process to those individuals charged with a crime. Criminal convictions can carry severe consequences, including: Paying steep fines and court costs, Loss of liberty by imprisonment and Loss of civil liberties, like the right to carry a weapon and the right to vote. A criminal conviction can also carry a permanent stigma. Criminal procedures are designed to make sure that any given defendant receives due process and their constitutional rights are protected.
According to Sun (2004), procedural justice cannot be enforced unless the fair competition between defendant and accuser is guaranteed. During the legal procedures, since the accusers have the coercive force of the country to back them up, they are prior than the accused. Hence, while protect the rights of accuser, the right of the accused must be protect as well. In this sense, right to silence strengthens the power of defense of the defendant, so it helps to pledge the power balance (Sun, 2004). Also, right to silence restrains the power of police, officials of prosecution, and other relevant officials (Sun, 2004).
Introduction The traditional underpinnings of criminal adjective law, statutes, common law and case, regulate South African criminal proceedings. The point of departure for the construction and application of all the rules of criminal adjective law has become the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution). This ramification results from the categorical superiority of the Constitution, as proclaimed in the preamble as well as sections 1(c) and 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, section 2 of the Constitution dictates that any criminal procedural rule in opposition to constitutional precepts is invalid. Thus the analysis of any criminal procedural law rule must account for influence stemming