CHP 7 Flashcards
What are the three primary purposes of criminal courts?
(1) to determine the guilt or innocence of accused persons
(2) to impose an appropriate sentence on those who are convicted
(3) to ensure that the rights of accused persons are protected throughout the criminal justice process.
How does the use of plea bargains negate the epistemological purpose of courts?
Plea bargains skip full trials, so the court may not uncover all facts or the “truth.”
By resolving cases through negotiation rather than a full trial, plea bargains reduce the court’s role in fact-finding and truth-seeking. Instead of rigorously testing evidence in open court, the truth may never fully emerge, undermining the court’s epistemological function of determining factual guilt or innocence.
In an adversarial court system, how is the “truth” determined?
Two opposing sides present evidence to a neutral judge (and sometimes a jury), who decide which side’s case is more convincing.
The “truth” is determined through a contest between the prosecution and the defense, each presenting evidence and arguments before a neutral judge (and possibly a jury). The assumption is that the most accurate version of events will emerge from this structured, adversarial debate.
What roles do prosecution attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, and juries play in adversarial court systems?
Prosecutors prove guilt, defence attorneys protect the accused, judges ensure fairness and proper procedure, and juries decide guilt based on evidence.
In adversarial systems, prosecution attorneys attempt to prove the defendant’s guilt, while defense attorneys advocate on behalf of the accused. Judges act as neutral arbiters who ensure legal rules are followed and may decide the case if there is no jury. Juries (when present) serve as the trier of fact, determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented.
What is the basic distinction between adversarial court systems and inquisitorial court systems?
Adversarial: parties battle to reveal truth before a neutral judge/jury.
Inquisitorial: judge leads the investigation to find the truth.
Adversarial systems rely on two opposing parties (prosecution and defence) to present evidence before a neutral judge or jury. Inquisitorial systems place greater responsibility on the judge, who actively investigates the case, gathers evidence, and questions witnesses to arrive at the truth.
What is the courtroom workgroup model in courts?
It views judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers as a team working together to efficiently process cases, rather than strict adversaries.
The courtroom workgroup model suggests that judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and other court personnel function as a cooperative team. Instead of engaging strictly in adversarial battles, they interact regularly, share goals of efficiency, and often negotiate outcomes that streamline case processing.
How does the courtroom workgroup model conflict with the adversarial justice system?
Instead of true opposition, courtroom actors cooperate, which may reduce the rigorous search for truth.
While the adversarial model presumes a contest between opposing sides, the courtroom workgroup model emphasizes collaboration and efficiency. This can lead to negotiated outcomes, reduced scrutiny of evidence, and potentially less vigorous representation, undermining the notion of a purely adversarial “battle for the truth.”
What are the major differences between provincial courts, provincial superior/supreme courts, and federal courts, and what types of cases are heard in each?
Provincial courts handle most minor cases;
provincial superior/supreme courts handle serious cases and appeals;
federal courts deal with federal matters.
Provincial courts: Handle most routine criminal cases, bail hearings, and less serious offences; judges are provincially appointed.
Provincial superior/supreme courts: Deal with more serious criminal offences, including jury trials, and hear appeals from provincial courts; judges are federally appointed.
Federal courts: Deal with cases under federal statutes (e.g., immigration, tax law) and may have some limited criminal jurisdiction; judges are federally appointed.
What is the major difference between entry-level (trial) courts and appellate courts?
Entry-level (trial) courts hear evidence and decide guilt.
Appellate courts review legal errors in trial decisions.
Entry-level, or trial, courts conduct the initial proceedings where evidence is presented, witnesses are heard, and verdicts are rendered. Appellate courts do not rehear the facts of the case; instead, they review the trial’s procedure and the application of the law to determine if legal errors were made that affect the outcome.
What are problem-solving courts and how do they differ from typical courts?
They address underlying issues (e.g., addiction, mental health) with treatment and rehabilitation instead of just focusing on guilt and punishment.
Problem-solving courts, such as drug treatment or mental health courts, focus on addressing underlying issues (e.g., addiction, mental illness) that contribute to criminal behavior. They emphasize treatment, rehabilitation, and interdisciplinary collaboration rather than solely aiming to determine guilt or impose punishment, which differentiates them from traditional, more adversarial courts.
What are some examples of problem-solving courts in Canada?
Drug treatment courts,
mental health courts,
community wellness courts,
domestic violence courts,
and Indigenous courts.
Examples include drug treatment courts, mental health courts, community wellness courts, domestic violence courts, and Indigenous courts (such as Gladue Courts). Each is designed to address specific offender needs and reduce reoffending by providing tailored interventions.
What are Indigenous courts and how do they differ from typical courts?
They incorporate Indigenous culture,
focus on healing,
and involve community and Elders,
rather than relying solely on formal legal procedures.
Indigenous courts integrate Indigenous cultural practices, community involvement, and healing processes. They place greater emphasis on reconciliation, restoration, and addressing the needs of offenders, victims, and the community. This contrasts with typical courts, which focus more on formal legal procedures and punishment.
How does restorative justice differ from our traditional criminal justice process?
Restorative justice emphasizes repairing harm,
involving victims and communities,
and fostering accountability,
not just punishment.
Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm, engaging victims, offenders, and the community in dialogue, and fostering accountability and healing. Traditional justice often emphasizes punishment, isolation of the offender, and the state’s role in imposing sentences, rather than reconciliation and understanding.
