NCJ Number
74226
Journal
Criminal Justice Journal Volume: 1 Issue: 2 Dated: (Second Quarter 1980) Pages: 15-19
Date Published
1980
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The choice between effective crime control and due process faced by the Philippines and other countries experiencing rebellion and widespread violence is discussed.
Abstract
Crime prevention when national security is involved means controlling crime to the limit justified by the State. Speed is attained through informality and uniformity in law enforcement operations. Interrogation in the police station establishes the facts more quickly than examination and cross-examination in court. A routine process for moving from prearrest investigation through disposition is introduced to handle a great number of cases quickly. The process is also characterized by a high degree of finality. At the early stage of the criminal process, cases in which the person apprehended does not appear to be the offender are thrown out, and the rest of the cases are fed into the system in which conviction must be secured as expeditiously as possible without challenge or reversal. For these remaining cases, the presumption of guilt leads to a speedy settlement: further processing through the system is itself taken as an indication of probable guilt. This presumption is an expression of confidence in the reliability of administrative investigations. The second choice, due process for human rights, rejects the premise that the findings of investigative and prosecutorial officers can be trusted. Instead, it insists upon the formal adjudicative procedures in which an impartial tribunal publicly tries the case against the accused, and in which guilt is determined only after the accused has had a full opportunity for defense using all the legal means available. The deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process is considered a serious violation of human rights. While strong measures of crime control decrease the freedom of individuals and their ability to defend themselves against wrongful encroachments on their rights, excessive individual freedom may induce misguided elements to sabotage the criminal justice system and wreck the structure of a democratic society. A compromise between these poles must be reached. A reference list is not included.