Fairness, Liberty, and Individual Freedom, Essay Example

Fairness, liberty, and individual freedom are the cardinal concerns of the due process model. From this perspective, the rights of the accused take center stage: although accused, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and every care must be taken to ensure that the defendant’s rights are respected. A key concern here is miscarriage of justice: due process advocates are quick to point out that these concerns are still very relevant in today’s criminal justice system, particularly in light of DNA evidence that has overturned convictions for capital crimes—in some cases, even after the execution of the wrongly-convicted.

The first OJ case is a good example of due process in action. Despite a seeming preponderance of evidence against him, OJ walked because his defense was able to successfully argue that the police could not be trusted. The Rodney King case is another example, inasmuch as it highlighted the fact that police officers are capable of heinous brutality. Miranda rights are still another, very powerful and widespread, example. Miranda rights protect those detained by the police for interrogation, although there are, of course, a number of very well-defined and specific exceptions, from the inevitable discovery rule for evidence to the protection of public safety rule.

An advocate of due process would treat Michael Pickens as innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. This is more than just a formality for this perspective: it is the animating credo behind it. With regards to sentencing Pickens, the due process advocate would remain concerned with his rights: the sentence would follow the established pattern for offenses such as Pickens’s, though every care would be taken to ensure that it would not be unduly harsh or extreme.

Pickens would probably have to serve prison time, possibly even a significant amount of prison time, and pay a fine, but again, the concern would remain fairness, both to Pickens and to his victims. The concern for Pickens’s own rights would remain: ensuring that the sentence does not violate these in any way. Thus, the sentence would be much more “conventional” than those favored by the rehabilitation or restorative justice approaches, and far more hands-on than that favored by the noninterventionist approach. However, it would also be far less severe than that favored by the crime control perspective, since the emphasis would be on fairness and justice and rights, rather than harshly punishing an offender in order to protect society.

Personally, this approach is the one that I prefer overall. I like the emphasis on justice, fairness, and equality; indeed, I find these to be indispensable and absolutely seminal to the maintenance of a free society. I also agree with the emphasis on rights, and the presumption of innocence: defendants must be treated as innocent, albeit accused, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing should not be too severe, and it should remain guided by a concern for the rights of the offender. However, all of this notwithstanding, I do think that the rehabilitation and restorative approaches can offer some much-needed balance, or even alternatives, at least in some cases: for example, either or both of these approaches might be used to complement a lighter sentence under the due process approach. And again, for some things I favor the noninterventionist approach over that of the due process model.