Introduction
According to Brannigan, the Canadian justice system can be perceived from two different angles. First, it can be presented as a criminal funnel that presents a kind of flowcharts aimed at developing and analyzing criminal cases – from crime detection to conviction. Second metaphorical comparison considers justice system as a crime net that consists in selective policy of the justice administration.
Similar to Brannigan, Packer also introduces his vision of the American justice system and his two models involve “due process model” and “crime control model” representing two different value systems based on the indicated priorities. Juxtaposing Brannigan’s and Packer’s positions, it can be stated that the difference between models is based on different values taken to accuse people.
Main body
Hence, Brannigan primary focus is made on social concerns whereas Packer pays attention to moral values (98). In particular, both metaphors about funnels and nets are more associated with the measures taken to reduce the crime rates whereas Packer focuses on the values that the police government pursues while arresting the criminals (152). In this respect, the first position can be approved by Hansen’s idea about the social construction where prison serves as a looking-glass of all vices and prejudices infused within the system of justice in Canada (32).
Second, Brannigan believes that subjective and unequal punishment is determined by governmental abuse of power where Packers proves the contrary. Abuse of power and brutality of police office is not a myth anymore as more and more cases prove police officer’s irrelevant treatment of the arrested people. Their prejudiced attitude toward the accused leaves no hope for the presence of just and order during the trials.
In this respect, Bayley states that the Canadian police administration is more focused on individuals to be prosecuted rather than on police misbehavior and abuse of power (94). However, the root of the problem is not in the way police misconducts but in the way it reacts to the crime. In fact, there are the police arrests people only after the crime is committed and fails to introduce precautionary measure and define that the main underpinnings of the existing social disorder.
Finally, Packer’s module can be distinguished through the notions of possibility and must whereas Brannigan’ fails to mention this assumption within the content of criminal justice.
done in as little as 1 hour
Specifically, Packer support the ideas that all criminal and accusation procedures should be accomplished should not be performed in a vacuum as many factors contribute to final decisions (153). In other words, system must operate in a particular context, taking into account all circumstances. In contrast, Brannigan unveils that the Canadian law system relies primarily on absolute rules and notions and ignores specific conditions and newly appeared circumstances (100).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that both system are still very much similar to each other in term of meting out justice approaches. Nevertheless, such aspects as abuse of power, value disparities and different priorities constitute the major distinctions between two systems of justice. In addition, both systems also differently indicate the role of criminals and victims, which also creates a number of serious problems and concerns.
Works Cited
Bayley, David. “Getting Serious about Police Brutality,” in P. Stenning, ed., Accountability for Criminal Justice: Selected Essays US:UTP, 1995. Print. pp. 93-109.
Brannigan, Augustine. “Criminal Justice: A Crime Funnel or a Crime Net?” In Crimes, Courts and Corrections: An Introduction to Crime and Social Control in Canada Toronto: Hold, Rinehart & Winston, 1984, pp. 93-110.
according to your instructions
Hansen, Ann. “Prisons are the looking-glass of society: the struggle toward dignity for women,” Canadian Dimension. 36 (2002):30-33.
Packer, Herbert. “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Calif: Stanford University Press, 1968. Print. pp. 149-173.