Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (5)**
– ## week7.docx
– ## intro.docx
– ## ResearchPaper-Excerpt.docx
– outline.docx
– LiteratureReview.docx
**## week7.docx**
1
5
525 discussions 300 words
1. During the war in Iraq, the American military paid millions of dollars in "condolence payments" to family members of noncombatant Iraqis killed or injured during the fighting. These payments reportedly were not an admission of guilt by American forces but were in keeping with Iraqi custom and meant to lessen ill will toward Americans. As discussed in Chapter 8, diyya payments are also meant to lessen ill will between the offender and the victim.
Discuss how "condolence payments" are made by the American military, similar to, or different from, the diyya payments made by individuals.
2. Which is more humane – telling a condemned prisoner the exact day and time he or she will be executed or "surprising" the condemned prisoner on the morning of the execution?
Textbook
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470
525 final research paper ( will upload all previous work)
Compare and contrast the legal systems of two countries (other than the United States) of your choice in a research paper. In this paper discuss the issues of due process, search and seizure, self-incrimination, the right to counsel, and any other constitutional protections you would or would not be entitled to in these countries.
You should also include a discussion of the arrest and interrogation procedures of the local police, the court process, and any punishments you would be facing for an offense. You should conclude with your overall impression of the criminal justice system of the two countries.
Your finalized research paper should contain at least 2800 words, and no more than 3500 words, plus title, abstract, and reference pages.
Using the outline, introduction and conclusion paragraphs previously submitted
Your paper must utilize at least 12 peer reviewed sources used in your literature review. The textbook is a valid resource to cite.
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470)
530 d1 350 words
Please review
[42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf). Why is it important to identify a “Person” for purposes of this law? Discuss fully, exhibiting your knowledge of the readings.
What is the significance of the “Ku Klux Klan Act” reference in 42 U.S.C. § 1983? How does this reference affect cases brought today? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf
530 d2 350 words
Please review the
[JUSTIA U.S. Law website](https://law.justia.com/) and research a case involving a decision regarding “police qualified immunity.” Did the court involved make the right decision regarding "reasonableness" in the case you found? Why or why not? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
In another case regarding qualified immunity, this time before the Ninth Circuit (see
[_Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt_](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/)), the court articulated a specific test for "reasonableness" and was found to be in favor of the plaintiff. Did the Ninth Circuit make the right call this case? Why or why not? Discuss fully, exhibit knowledge of the readings, and discuss the legal test the court applied.
How would you define "reasonableness" regarding officer conduct? Be detailed in your response.
[https://law.justia.com/](https://law.justia.com/)
[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/)
**## intro.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems and Due Process**
Introduction
The rapid pace of globalization, development of technology and rising levels of expectations for human rights has brought its stamp on development of criminal justice systems in recent times, and enhanced due process must pervasively be promoted on a pan-jurisdictional basis. The United Kingdom and European Union demonstrate principles of fairness, accountability, and rule of law, but have varying practices with respect to procedures for safeguarding a person. Such disparities can be found in the process of conducting searches and seizures, pre-trial detention, and evidence requirements. Meanwhile, new issues and technologies like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime continue to put to the test traditional legal protections. The aim of this paper is to consider convergence and divergence of the protections afforded by the due process clauses of the law in the UK and EU criminal justice systems.
The principle of due process in the context of criminal justice is a bedrock principle of every democratic system for two reasons: First, it guarantees that a person is not subjected to arbitrary action by the government, and second, it helps to build confidence in the legal system. The UK and EU value ‘fairness, accountability and the rule of law’, but have decided on different interpretations in the way in which due process protections are implemented in practice. The differences are noticeable about pre-trial detention procedures, search and seizure, procedural fairness, and the increasing digitization of criminal justice.
Furthermore, procedural fairness continues to be one of the essential elements of due process since it has a significant impact on public legitimacy and trust in legal processes. Procedural justice is more than just compliance with legal procedures (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022). It also covers issues like fairness, transparency, and non-bias of decision-making processes. The authors contend that structural inequalities and imbalances can disempower public trust in a decision, even if formal procedures are done correctly. There has been a growing emphasis in the United Kingdom and the EU on transparency and accountability in attempts to reinforce procedural fairness in both Member States and the United Kingdom. But the ways in which these protections are given have a distinct effect on countries where their legal traditions differ. Much of the UK law, however, is derived from common law and precedent, whereas in many EU jurisdictions, legality is not codified, and national human rights protection is not necessarily equivalent to that of the EU.
Another area where due process is an issue is pre-trial detention. The rights of accused persons may be seriously impacted as decisions on detention are made prior to determining guilt in court. Dhami and van den Brink (2022) found significant differences in how detention is used in practice in different jurisdictions and how subjective assessments of the child play a greater part than objective laws in the decision-making process. These inconsistencies give rise to suspicions over the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. A key concern of European jurisdictions is proportionality and necessity, as seen in the assessment of detention; a commitment to human rights protection has been seen in many European jurisdictions.
Due process protections are again illustrated in the context of criminal investigations, where police authorities exercise their own power. Effective law enforcement and prevention of abuse of power are akin to a fine line for criminal investigations. Amagnya (2022) discussed police prosecutions and found that there were issues about instances involving overlapping roles between the police and prosecutors. Poorly defined duties between the investigative and prosecutive agencies may create a risk of compromise of the fairness of the procedure. The separation of police and prosecution in the United Kingdom and most of the European Union jurisdictions is greater than in most other jurisdictions, but there is a continuing debate about issues of discretion, bias, and accountability. A separation of investigative and prosecutive functions is a valuable protection against the possibility of miscarriage of justice and unfair procedure.
As technology has advanced and digital evidence has become a greater issue, search and seizure protections are becoming ever more complex. Traditional legal rules pertaining to search were created mostly with respect to tangible items and physical evidence. Today, however, with the rise of electronic communications, cloud storage, and data that spans several jurisdictions, criminal investigations can become an electronic game. But, in today's world, with electronic communication, cloud storage systems, and data in several jurisdictions, the task of investigation may be an electronic game. In the case of cross-border investigations, Casino et al. (2022) stated that most often, there are law-related obstacles, such as divergent state laws, data access regulations, and privacy laws. The issues are such that a compromise between privacy and constitutional protection and the investigative needs is required between legal system provisions.
The European Union has demonstrated more restrictive views on 'uneditable' evidence in the context of illegally obtained evidence. Panzavolta & Maes (2022) believe the use of such exclusionary rules can foster the respect of due process because they make illegal searches and violations of individual rights undesirable and less likely. The U.K. has a more liberal history of granting admissibility to evidence. This difference is indicative of the civil law-common law distinction in general. Both operate on the principle of equality, but the European Union generally leans towards stability when it comes to the rights granted, whereas the U.K. leans towards judicial discretion.
Perhaps the greatest future threat to the protection of due process arises from emerging technologies. AI is being increasingly adopted to forecast crime events, to make risk assessments, and to design crime prevention strategies. These tools have the promise of developing resource optimization and efficiency, but also present dangers of transparency and accountability. As with many algorithmic systems, Blount (2022) cautions, the algorithm is a “black box,” and it can be hard for defendants and lawyers to understand “how [such] decisions are made.” Such transparency may jeopardize the rights of due process and heighten the possibility of discriminatory outcomes occurring. Indeed, Zilka et al. (2022) highlight the necessity of oversight and governance to hold algorithmic decision-making to account and make it comprehensible. The EU seems to have materially undertaken a more restrictive regime with greater emphasis on human rights' protections, whereas the United Kingdom has maintained a moderate approach, that is, with greater emphasis on requirements for innovation-related oversight.
Overall, there is a similarity that both the UK and the EU have adhered to due process in the criminal justice system and the rule of law. They have some differences in how they put or may put into practice procedural safeguards, evidence control, and new technology issues. Both will constantly have to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges thrown at them by the growth of AI, digital evidence, and transnational crime, but retain the very principles of democratic justice that are the starting point of our rights.
Conclusion
In summation, European Union jurisdictions tend to be more consistent and settled on how rights will be treated (and more important), UK common law bases allow for greater flexibility in judicial interpretation. The systems are, however, increasingly affected by new issues like the use of artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime cases that take them into issues where existing procedural safeguards are affected. In moving forward, both governments need to evolve and maintain fundamental democratic values of fairness, justice, and respect for human rights.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**## ResearchPaper-Excerpt.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems and Due Process**
**Due Process, Procedural Fairness, and Emerging Challenges in Comparative Criminal Justice**
**Introduction**
The rapid pace of globalization, development of technology and rising levels of expectations for human rights has brought its stamp on development of criminal justice systems in recent times, and enhanced due process must pervasively be promoted on a pan-jurisdictional basis. The United Kingdom and EU demonstrate principles of fairness, accountability and rule of law, but have varying practices with respect to procedures for safeguarding a person. Such disparities can be found in the process of conducting searches and seizures, pre-trial detention, and evidence requirements. Meanwhile, new issues and technologies like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime continue to put to the test traditional legal protections. The aim of this paper is to consider convergence and divergence of the protections afforded by the due process clauses of the law in the UK and EU criminal justice systems.
The principle of due process in the context of criminal justice is a bedrock principle of every democratic system for two reasons: First, it guarantees that a person is not subjected to arbitrary action by the government, and second, it helps to build confidence in the legal system. The UK and EU value ‘fairness, accountability and the rule of law’, but have decided on different interpretations in the way in which due process protections are implemented in practice. The differences are noticeable about pre-trial detention procedures, search and seizure, procedural fairness, and the increasing digitization of criminal justice.
Furthermore, procedural fairness continues to be one of the essential elements of due process since it has a significant impact on public legitimacy and trust in legal processes. Procedural justice is more than just compliance with legal procedures (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022). It also covers issues like fairness, transparency, and non-bias of decision-making processes. The authors contend that structural inequalities and imbalances can disempower public trust in a decision, even if formal procedures are done correctly. There has been a growing emphasis in the United Kingdom and the EU on transparency and accountability in attempts to reinforce procedural fairness in both Member States and the United Kingdom. But the ways in which these protections are given have a distinct effect on countries where their legal traditions differ. Much of the UK law, however, is derived from common law and precedent, whereas in many EU jurisdictions, legality is not codified, and national human rights protection is not necessarily equivalent to that of the EU.
Another area where due process is an issue is pre-trial detention. The rights of accused persons may be seriously impacted as decisions on detention are made prior to determining guilt in court. Dhami and van den Brink (2022) found significant differences in how detention is used in practice in different jurisdictions and how subjective assessments of the child play a greater part than objective laws in the decision-making process. These inconsistencies give rise to suspicions over the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. A key concern of European jurisdictions is proportionality and necessity, as seen in the assessment of detention; a commitment to human rights protection has been seen in many European jurisdictions.
Due process protections are again illustrated in the context of criminal investigations, where police authorities exercise their own power. Effective law enforcement and prevention of abuse of power are akin to a fine line for criminal investigations. Amagnya (2022) discussed police prosecutions and found that there were issues about instances involving overlapping roles between the police and prosecutors. Poorly defined duties between the investigative and prosecutive agencies may create a risk of compromise of the fairness of the procedure. The separation of police and prosecution in the United Kingdom and most of the European Union jurisdictions is greater than in most other jurisdictions, but there is a continuing debate about issues of discretion, bias, and accountability. A separation of investigative and prosecutive functions is a valuable protection against the possibility of miscarriage of justice and unfair procedure.
As technology has advanced and digital evidence has become a greater issue, search and seizure protections are becoming ever more complex. Traditional legal rules pertaining to search were created mostly with respect to tangible items and physical evidence. Today, however, with the rise of electronic communications, cloud storage, and data that spans several jurisdictions, criminal investigations can become an electronic game. But, in today's world, with electronic communication, cloud storage systems, and data in several jurisdictions, the task of investigation may be an electronic game. In the case of cross-border investigations, Casino et al. (2022) stated that most often, there are law-related obstacles, such as divergent state laws, data access regulations, and privacy laws. The issues are such that a compromise between privacy and constitutional protection and the investigative needs is required between legal system provisions.
The EU has demonstrated more restrictive views on 'uneditable' evidence in the context of illegally obtained evidence. Panzavolta & Maes (2022) believe the use of such exclusionary rules can foster the respect of due process because they make illegal searches and violations of individual rights undesirable and less likely. The U.K. has a more liberal history of granting admissibility to evidence. This difference is indicative of the civil law-common law distinction in general. Both operate on the principle of equality, but the European Union generally leans towards stability when it comes to the rights granted, whereas the U.K. leans towards judicial discretion.
Perhaps the greatest future threat to the protection of due process arises from emerging technologies. AI is being increasingly adopted to forecast crime events, to make risk assessments, and to design crime prevention strategies. These tools have the promise of developing resource optimization and efficiency, but also present dangers of transparency and accountability. As with many algorithmic systems, Blount (2022) cautions, the algorithm is a “black box,” and it can be hard for defendants and lawyers to understand “how [such] decisions are made.” Such transparency may jeopardize the rights of due process and heighten the possibility of discriminatory outcomes occurring. Indeed, Zilka et al. (2022) highlight the necessity of oversight and governance to hold algorithmic decision-making to account and make it comprehensible. The EU seems to have materially undertaken a more restrictive regime with greater emphasis on human rights' protections, whereas the United Kingdom has maintained a moderate approach, that is, with greater emphasis on requirements for innovation-related oversight.
Overall, there is a similarity that both the UK and the EU have adhered to due process in the criminal justice system and the rule of law. They have some differences in how they put or may put into practice procedural safeguards, evidence control, and new technology issues. Both will constantly have to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges thrown at them by the growth of AI, digital evidence, and transnational crime, but retain the very principles of democratic justice that are the starting point of our rights.
Conclusion
In summation, EU jurisdictions tend to be more consistent and settled on how rights will be treated (and more important), UK common law bases allow for greater flexibility in judicial interpretation. The systems are, however, increasingly affected by new issues like the use of artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime cases that take them into issues where existing procedural safeguards are affected. In moving forward, both governments need to evolve and maintain fundamental democratic values of fairness, justice, and respect for human rights.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**outline.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/outline-docx-10560329)
**LiteratureReview.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview-docx-10560327)
**LiteratureReview.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview-docx-10560327)
**## week7.docx**
1
5
525 discussions 300 words
1. During the war in Iraq, the American military paid millions of dollars in "condolence payments" to family members of noncombatant Iraqis killed or injured during the fighting. These payments reportedly were not an admission of guilt by American forces but were in keeping with Iraqi custom and meant to lessen ill will toward Americans. As discussed in Chapter 8, diyya payments are also meant to lessen ill will between the offender and the victim.
Discuss how "condolence payments" are made by the American military, similar to, or different from, the diyya payments made by individuals.
2. Which is more humane – telling a condemned prisoner the exact day and time he or she will be executed or "surprising" the condemned prisoner on the morning of the execution?
Textbook
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470
525 final research paper ( will upload all previous work)
Compare and contrast the legal systems of two countries (other than the United States) of your choice in a research paper. In this paper discuss the issues of due process, search and seizure, self-incrimination, the right to counsel, and any other constitutional protections you would or would not be entitled to in these countries.
You should also include a discussion of the arrest and interrogation procedures of the local police, the court process, and any punishments you would be facing for an offense. You should conclude with your overall impression of the criminal justice system of the two countries.
Your finalized research paper should contain at least 2800 words, and no more than 3500 words, plus title, abstract, and reference pages.
Using the outline, introduction and conclusion paragraphs previously submitted
Your paper must utilize at least 12 peer reviewed sources used in your literature review. The textbook is a valid resource to cite.
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470)
530 d1 350 words
Please review
[42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf). Why is it important to identify a “Person” for purposes of this law? Discuss fully, exhibiting your knowledge of the readings.
What is the significance of the “Ku Klux Klan Act” reference in 42 U.S.C. § 1983? How does this reference affect cases brought today? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf
530 d2 350 words
Please review the
[JUSTIA U.S. Law website](https://law.justia.com/) and research a case involving a decision regarding “police qualified immunity.” Did the court involved make the right decision regarding "reasonableness" in the case you found? Why or why not? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
In another case regarding qualified immunity, this time before the Ninth Circuit (see
[_Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt_](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/)), the court articulated a specific test for "reasonableness" and was found to be in favor of the plaintiff. Did the Ninth Circuit make the right call this case? Why or why not? Discuss fully, exhibit knowledge of the readings, and discuss the legal test the court applied.
How would you define "reasonableness" regarding officer conduct? Be detailed in your response.
[https://law.justia.com/](https://law.justia.com/)
[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/)
**## intro.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems and Due Process**
Introduction
The rapid pace of globalization, development of technology and rising levels of expectations for human rights has brought its stamp on development of criminal justice systems in recent times, and enhanced due process must pervasively be promoted on a pan-jurisdictional basis. The United Kingdom and European Union demonstrate principles of fairness, accountability, and rule of law, but have varying practices with respect to procedures for safeguarding a person. Such disparities can be found in the process of conducting searches and seizures, pre-trial detention, and evidence requirements. Meanwhile, new issues and technologies like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime continue to put to the test traditional legal protections. The aim of this paper is to consider convergence and divergence of the protections afforded by the due process clauses of the law in the UK and EU criminal justice systems.
The principle of due process in the context of criminal justice is a bedrock principle of every democratic system for two reasons: First, it guarantees that a person is not subjected to arbitrary action by the government, and second, it helps to build confidence in the legal system. The UK and EU value ‘fairness, accountability and the rule of law’, but have decided on different interpretations in the way in which due process protections are implemented in practice. The differences are noticeable about pre-trial detention procedures, search and seizure, procedural fairness, and the increasing digitization of criminal justice.
Furthermore, procedural fairness continues to be one of the essential elements of due process since it has a significant impact on public legitimacy and trust in legal processes. Procedural justice is more than just compliance with legal procedures (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022). It also covers issues like fairness, transparency, and non-bias of decision-making processes. The authors contend that structural inequalities and imbalances can disempower public trust in a decision, even if formal procedures are done correctly. There has been a growing emphasis in the United Kingdom and the EU on transparency and accountability in attempts to reinforce procedural fairness in both Member States and the United Kingdom. But the ways in which these protections are given have a distinct effect on countries where their legal traditions differ. Much of the UK law, however, is derived from common law and precedent, whereas in many EU jurisdictions, legality is not codified, and national human rights protection is not necessarily equivalent to that of the EU.
Another area where due process is an issue is pre-trial detention. The rights of accused persons may be seriously impacted as decisions on detention are made prior to determining guilt in court. Dhami and van den Brink (2022) found significant differences in how detention is used in practice in different jurisdictions and how subjective assessments of the child play a greater part than objective laws in the decision-making process. These inconsistencies give rise to suspicions over the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. A key concern of European jurisdictions is proportionality and necessity, as seen in the assessment of detention; a commitment to human rights protection has been seen in many European jurisdictions.
Due process protections are again illustrated in the context of criminal investigations, where police authorities exercise their own power. Effective law enforcement and prevention of abuse of power are akin to a fine line for criminal investigations. Amagnya (2022) discussed police prosecutions and found that there were issues about instances involving overlapping roles between the police and prosecutors. Poorly defined duties between the investigative and prosecutive agencies may create a risk of compromise of the fairness of the procedure. The separation of police and prosecution in the United Kingdom and most of the European Union jurisdictions is greater than in most other jurisdictions, but there is a continuing debate about issues of discretion, bias, and accountability. A separation of investigative and prosecutive functions is a valuable protection against the possibility of miscarriage of justice and unfair procedure.
As technology has advanced and digital evidence has become a greater issue, search and seizure protections are becoming ever more complex. Traditional legal rules pertaining to search were created mostly with respect to tangible items and physical evidence. Today, however, with the rise of electronic communications, cloud storage, and data that spans several jurisdictions, criminal investigations can become an electronic game. But, in today's world, with electronic communication, cloud storage systems, and data in several jurisdictions, the task of investigation may be an electronic game. In the case of cross-border investigations, Casino et al. (2022) stated that most often, there are law-related obstacles, such as divergent state laws, data access regulations, and privacy laws. The issues are such that a compromise between privacy and constitutional protection and the investigative needs is required between legal system provisions.
The European Union has demonstrated more restrictive views on 'uneditable' evidence in the context of illegally obtained evidence. Panzavolta & Maes (2022) believe the use of such exclusionary rules can foster the respect of due process because they make illegal searches and violations of individual rights undesirable and less likely. The U.K. has a more liberal history of granting admissibility to evidence. This difference is indicative of the civil law-common law distinction in general. Both operate on the principle of equality, but the European Union generally leans towards stability when it comes to the rights granted, whereas the U.K. leans towards judicial discretion.
Perhaps the greatest future threat to the protection of due process arises from emerging technologies. AI is being increasingly adopted to forecast crime events, to make risk assessments, and to design crime prevention strategies. These tools have the promise of developing resource optimization and efficiency, but also present dangers of transparency and accountability. As with many algorithmic systems, Blount (2022) cautions, the algorithm is a “black box,” and it can be hard for defendants and lawyers to understand “how [such] decisions are made.” Such transparency may jeopardize the rights of due process and heighten the possibility of discriminatory outcomes occurring. Indeed, Zilka et al. (2022) highlight the necessity of oversight and governance to hold algorithmic decision-making to account and make it comprehensible. The EU seems to have materially undertaken a more restrictive regime with greater emphasis on human rights' protections, whereas the United Kingdom has maintained a moderate approach, that is, with greater emphasis on requirements for innovation-related oversight.
Overall, there is a similarity that both the UK and the EU have adhered to due process in the criminal justice system and the rule of law. They have some differences in how they put or may put into practice procedural safeguards, evidence control, and new technology issues. Both will constantly have to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges thrown at them by the growth of AI, digital evidence, and transnational crime, but retain the very principles of democratic justice that are the starting point of our rights.
Conclusion
In summation, European Union jurisdictions tend to be more consistent and settled on how rights will be treated (and more important), UK common law bases allow for greater flexibility in judicial interpretation. The systems are, however, increasingly affected by new issues like the use of artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime cases that take them into issues where existing procedural safeguards are affected. In moving forward, both governments need to evolve and maintain fundamental democratic values of fairness, justice, and respect for human rights.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**## ResearchPaper-Excerpt.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems and Due Process**
**Due Process, Procedural Fairness, and Emerging Challenges in Comparative Criminal Justice**
**Introduction**
The rapid pace of globalization, development of technology and rising levels of expectations for human rights has brought its stamp on development of criminal justice systems in recent times, and enhanced due process must pervasively be promoted on a pan-jurisdictional basis. The United Kingdom and EU demonstrate principles of fairness, accountability and rule of law, but have varying practices with respect to procedures for safeguarding a person. Such disparities can be found in the process of conducting searches and seizures, pre-trial detention, and evidence requirements. Meanwhile, new issues and technologies like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime continue to put to the test traditional legal protections. The aim of this paper is to consider convergence and divergence of the protections afforded by the due process clauses of the law in the UK and EU criminal justice systems.
The principle of due process in the context of criminal justice is a bedrock principle of every democratic system for two reasons: First, it guarantees that a person is not subjected to arbitrary action by the government, and second, it helps to build confidence in the legal system. The UK and EU value ‘fairness, accountability and the rule of law’, but have decided on different interpretations in the way in which due process protections are implemented in practice. The differences are noticeable about pre-trial detention procedures, search and seizure, procedural fairness, and the increasing digitization of criminal justice.
Furthermore, procedural fairness continues to be one of the essential elements of due process since it has a significant impact on public legitimacy and trust in legal processes. Procedural justice is more than just compliance with legal procedures (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022). It also covers issues like fairness, transparency, and non-bias of decision-making processes. The authors contend that structural inequalities and imbalances can disempower public trust in a decision, even if formal procedures are done correctly. There has been a growing emphasis in the United Kingdom and the EU on transparency and accountability in attempts to reinforce procedural fairness in both Member States and the United Kingdom. But the ways in which these protections are given have a distinct effect on countries where their legal traditions differ. Much of the UK law, however, is derived from common law and precedent, whereas in many EU jurisdictions, legality is not codified, and national human rights protection is not necessarily equivalent to that of the EU.
Another area where due process is an issue is pre-trial detention. The rights of accused persons may be seriously impacted as decisions on detention are made prior to determining guilt in court. Dhami and van den Brink (2022) found significant differences in how detention is used in practice in different jurisdictions and how subjective assessments of the child play a greater part than objective laws in the decision-making process. These inconsistencies give rise to suspicions over the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. A key concern of European jurisdictions is proportionality and necessity, as seen in the assessment of detention; a commitment to human rights protection has been seen in many European jurisdictions.
Due process protections are again illustrated in the context of criminal investigations, where police authorities exercise their own power. Effective law enforcement and prevention of abuse of power are akin to a fine line for criminal investigations. Amagnya (2022) discussed police prosecutions and found that there were issues about instances involving overlapping roles between the police and prosecutors. Poorly defined duties between the investigative and prosecutive agencies may create a risk of compromise of the fairness of the procedure. The separation of police and prosecution in the United Kingdom and most of the European Union jurisdictions is greater than in most other jurisdictions, but there is a continuing debate about issues of discretion, bias, and accountability. A separation of investigative and prosecutive functions is a valuable protection against the possibility of miscarriage of justice and unfair procedure.
As technology has advanced and digital evidence has become a greater issue, search and seizure protections are becoming ever more complex. Traditional legal rules pertaining to search were created mostly with respect to tangible items and physical evidence. Today, however, with the rise of electronic communications, cloud storage, and data that spans several jurisdictions, criminal investigations can become an electronic game. But, in today's world, with electronic communication, cloud storage systems, and data in several jurisdictions, the task of investigation may be an electronic game. In the case of cross-border investigations, Casino et al. (2022) stated that most often, there are law-related obstacles, such as divergent state laws, data access regulations, and privacy laws. The issues are such that a compromise between privacy and constitutional protection and the investigative needs is required between legal system provisions.
The EU has demonstrated more restrictive views on 'uneditable' evidence in the context of illegally obtained evidence. Panzavolta & Maes (2022) believe the use of such exclusionary rules can foster the respect of due process because they make illegal searches and violations of individual rights undesirable and less likely. The U.K. has a more liberal history of granting admissibility to evidence. This difference is indicative of the civil law-common law distinction in general. Both operate on the principle of equality, but the European Union generally leans towards stability when it comes to the rights granted, whereas the U.K. leans towards judicial discretion.
Perhaps the greatest future threat to the protection of due process arises from emerging technologies. AI is being increasingly adopted to forecast crime events, to make risk assessments, and to design crime prevention strategies. These tools have the promise of developing resource optimization and efficiency, but also present dangers of transparency and accountability. As with many algorithmic systems, Blount (2022) cautions, the algorithm is a “black box,” and it can be hard for defendants and lawyers to understand “how [such] decisions are made.” Such transparency may jeopardize the rights of due process and heighten the possibility of discriminatory outcomes occurring. Indeed, Zilka et al. (2022) highlight the necessity of oversight and governance to hold algorithmic decision-making to account and make it comprehensible. The EU seems to have materially undertaken a more restrictive regime with greater emphasis on human rights' protections, whereas the United Kingdom has maintained a moderate approach, that is, with greater emphasis on requirements for innovation-related oversight.
Overall, there is a similarity that both the UK and the EU have adhered to due process in the criminal justice system and the rule of law. They have some differences in how they put or may put into practice procedural safeguards, evidence control, and new technology issues. Both will constantly have to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges thrown at them by the growth of AI, digital evidence, and transnational crime, but retain the very principles of democratic justice that are the starting point of our rights.
Conclusion
In summation, EU jurisdictions tend to be more consistent and settled on how rights will be treated (and more important), UK common law bases allow for greater flexibility in judicial interpretation. The systems are, however, increasingly affected by new issues like the use of artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime cases that take them into issues where existing procedural safeguards are affected. In moving forward, both governments need to evolve and maintain fundamental democratic values of fairness, justice, and respect for human rights.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**outline.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/outline-docx-10560329)
**LiteratureReview.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview-docx-10560327)
**## week7.docx**
1
5
525 discussions 300 words
1. During the war in Iraq, the American military paid millions of dollars in "condolence payments" to family members of noncombatant Iraqis killed or injured during the fighting. These payments reportedly were not an admission of guilt by American forces but were in keeping with Iraqi custom and meant to lessen ill will toward Americans. As discussed in Chapter 8, diyya payments are also meant to lessen ill will between the offender and the victim.
Discuss how "condolence payments" are made by the American military, similar to, or different from, the diyya payments made by individuals.
2. Which is more humane – telling a condemned prisoner the exact day and time he or she will be executed or "surprising" the condemned prisoner on the morning of the execution?
Textbook
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470
525 final research paper ( will upload all previous work)
Compare and contrast the legal systems of two countries (other than the United States) of your choice in a research paper. In this paper discuss the issues of due process, search and seizure, self-incrimination, the right to counsel, and any other constitutional protections you would or would not be entitled to in these countries.
You should also include a discussion of the arrest and interrogation procedures of the local police, the court process, and any punishments you would be facing for an offense. You should conclude with your overall impression of the criminal justice system of the two countries.
Your finalized research paper should contain at least 2800 words, and no more than 3500 words, plus title, abstract, and reference pages.
Using the outline, introduction and conclusion paragraphs previously submitted
Your paper must utilize at least 12 peer reviewed sources used in your literature review. The textbook is a valid resource to cite.
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470)
530 d1 350 words
Please review
[42 U.S.C. § 1983](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf). Why is it important to identify a “Person” for purposes of this law? Discuss fully, exhibiting your knowledge of the readings.
What is the significance of the “Ku Klux Klan Act” reference in 42 U.S.C. § 1983? How does this reference affect cases brought today? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf
530 d2 350 words
Please review the
[JUSTIA U.S. Law website](https://law.justia.com/) and research a case involving a decision regarding “police qualified immunity.” Did the court involved make the right decision regarding "reasonableness" in the case you found? Why or why not? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
In another case regarding qualified immunity, this time before the Ninth Circuit (see
[_Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt_](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/)), the court articulated a specific test for "reasonableness" and was found to be in favor of the plaintiff. Did the Ninth Circuit make the right call this case? Why or why not? Discuss fully, exhibit knowledge of the readings, and discuss the legal test the court applied.
How would you define "reasonableness" regarding officer conduct? Be detailed in your response.
[https://law.justia.com/](https://law.justia.com/)
[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/)
**## intro.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems and Due Process**
Introduction
The rapid pace of globalization, development of technology and rising levels of expectations for human rights has brought its stamp on development of criminal justice systems in recent times, and enhanced due process must pervasively be promoted on a pan-jurisdictional basis. The United Kingdom and European Union demonstrate principles of fairness, accountability, and rule of law, but have varying practices with respect to procedures for safeguarding a person. Such disparities can be found in the process of conducting searches and seizures, pre-trial detention, and evidence requirements. Meanwhile, new issues and technologies like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime continue to put to the test traditional legal protections. The aim of this paper is to consider convergence and divergence of the protections afforded by the due process clauses of the law in the UK and EU criminal justice systems.
The principle of due process in the context of criminal justice is a bedrock principle of every democratic system for two reasons: First, it guarantees that a person is not subjected to arbitrary action by the government, and second, it helps to build confidence in the legal system. The UK and EU value ‘fairness, accountability and the rule of law’, but have decided on different interpretations in the way in which due process protections are implemented in practice. The differences are noticeable about pre-trial detention procedures, search and seizure, procedural fairness, and the increasing digitization of criminal justice.
Furthermore, procedural fairness continues to be one of the essential elements of due process since it has a significant impact on public legitimacy and trust in legal processes. Procedural justice is more than just compliance with legal procedures (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022). It also covers issues like fairness, transparency, and non-bias of decision-making processes. The authors contend that structural inequalities and imbalances can disempower public trust in a decision, even if formal procedures are done correctly. There has been a growing emphasis in the United Kingdom and the EU on transparency and accountability in attempts to reinforce procedural fairness in both Member States and the United Kingdom. But the ways in which these protections are given have a distinct effect on countries where their legal traditions differ. Much of the UK law, however, is derived from common law and precedent, whereas in many EU jurisdictions, legality is not codified, and national human rights protection is not necessarily equivalent to that of the EU.
Another area where due process is an issue is pre-trial detention. The rights of accused persons may be seriously impacted as decisions on detention are made prior to determining guilt in court. Dhami and van den Brink (2022) found significant differences in how detention is used in practice in different jurisdictions and how subjective assessments of the child play a greater part than objective laws in the decision-making process. These inconsistencies give rise to suspicions over the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. A key concern of European jurisdictions is proportionality and necessity, as seen in the assessment of detention; a commitment to human rights protection has been seen in many European jurisdictions.
Due process protections are again illustrated in the context of criminal investigations, where police authorities exercise their own power. Effective law enforcement and prevention of abuse of power are akin to a fine line for criminal investigations. Amagnya (2022) discussed police prosecutions and found that there were issues about instances involving overlapping roles between the police and prosecutors. Poorly defined duties between the investigative and prosecutive agencies may create a risk of compromise of the fairness of the procedure. The separation of police and prosecution in the United Kingdom and most of the European Union jurisdictions is greater than in most other jurisdictions, but there is a continuing debate about issues of discretion, bias, and accountability. A separation of investigative and prosecutive functions is a valuable protection against the possibility of miscarriage of justice and unfair procedure.
As technology has advanced and digital evidence has become a greater issue, search and seizure protections are becoming ever more complex. Traditional legal rules pertaining to search were created mostly with respect to tangible items and physical evidence. Today, however, with the rise of electronic communications, cloud storage, and data that spans several jurisdictions, criminal investigations can become an electronic game. But, in today's world, with electronic communication, cloud storage systems, and data in several jurisdictions, the task of investigation may be an electronic game. In the case of cross-border investigations, Casino et al. (2022) stated that most often, there are law-related obstacles, such as divergent state laws, data access regulations, and privacy laws. The issues are such that a compromise between privacy and constitutional protection and the investigative needs is required between legal system provisions.
The European Union has demonstrated more restrictive views on 'uneditable' evidence in the context of illegally obtained evidence. Panzavolta & Maes (2022) believe the use of such exclusionary rules can foster the respect of due process because they make illegal searches and violations of individual rights undesirable and less likely. The U.K. has a more liberal history of granting admissibility to evidence. This difference is indicative of the civil law-common law distinction in general. Both operate on the principle of equality, but the European Union generally leans towards stability when it comes to the rights granted, whereas the U.K. leans towards judicial discretion.
Perhaps the greatest future threat to the protection of due process arises from emerging technologies. AI is being increasingly adopted to forecast crime events, to make risk assessments, and to design crime prevention strategies. These tools have the promise of developing resource optimization and efficiency, but also present dangers of transparency and accountability. As with many algorithmic systems, Blount (2022) cautions, the algorithm is a “black box,” and it can be hard for defendants and lawyers to understand “how [such] decisions are made.” Such transparency may jeopardize the rights of due process and heighten the possibility of discriminatory outcomes occurring. Indeed, Zilka et al. (2022) highlight the necessity of oversight and governance to hold algorithmic decision-making to account and make it comprehensible. The EU seems to have materially undertaken a more restrictive regime with greater emphasis on human rights' protections, whereas the United Kingdom has maintained a moderate approach, that is, with greater emphasis on requirements for innovation-related oversight.
Overall, there is a similarity that both the UK and the EU have adhered to due process in the criminal justice system and the rule of law. They have some differences in how they put or may put into practice procedural safeguards, evidence control, and new technology issues. Both will constantly have to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges thrown at them by the growth of AI, digital evidence, and transnational crime, but retain the very principles of democratic justice that are the starting point of our rights.
Conclusion
In summation, European Union jurisdictions tend to be more consistent and settled on how rights will be treated (and more important), UK common law bases allow for greater flexibility in judicial interpretation. The systems are, however, increasingly affected by new issues like the use of artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime cases that take them into issues where existing procedural safeguards are affected. In moving forward, both governments need to evolve and maintain fundamental democratic values of fairness, justice, and respect for human rights.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**## ResearchPaper-Excerpt.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems and Due Process**
**Due Process, Procedural Fairness, and Emerging Challenges in Comparative Criminal Justice**
**Introduction**
The rapid pace of globalization, development of technology and rising levels of expectations for human rights has brought its stamp on development of criminal justice systems in recent times, and enhanced due process must pervasively be promoted on a pan-jurisdictional basis. The United Kingdom and EU demonstrate principles of fairness, accountability and rule of law, but have varying practices with respect to procedures for safeguarding a person. Such disparities can be found in the process of conducting searches and seizures, pre-trial detention, and evidence requirements. Meanwhile, new issues and technologies like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime continue to put to the test traditional legal protections. The aim of this paper is to consider convergence and divergence of the protections afforded by the due process clauses of the law in the UK and EU criminal justice systems.
The principle of due process in the context of criminal justice is a bedrock principle of every democratic system for two reasons: First, it guarantees that a person is not subjected to arbitrary action by the government, and second, it helps to build confidence in the legal system. The UK and EU value ‘fairness, accountability and the rule of law’, but have decided on different interpretations in the way in which due process protections are implemented in practice. The differences are noticeable about pre-trial detention procedures, search and seizure, procedural fairness, and the increasing digitization of criminal justice.
Furthermore, procedural fairness continues to be one of the essential elements of due process since it has a significant impact on public legitimacy and trust in legal processes. Procedural justice is more than just compliance with legal procedures (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022). It also covers issues like fairness, transparency, and non-bias of decision-making processes. The authors contend that structural inequalities and imbalances can disempower public trust in a decision, even if formal procedures are done correctly. There has been a growing emphasis in the United Kingdom and the EU on transparency and accountability in attempts to reinforce procedural fairness in both Member States and the United Kingdom. But the ways in which these protections are given have a distinct effect on countries where their legal traditions differ. Much of the UK law, however, is derived from common law and precedent, whereas in many EU jurisdictions, legality is not codified, and national human rights protection is not necessarily equivalent to that of the EU.
Another area where due process is an issue is pre-trial detention. The rights of accused persons may be seriously impacted as decisions on detention are made prior to determining guilt in court. Dhami and van den Brink (2022) found significant differences in how detention is used in practice in different jurisdictions and how subjective assessments of the child play a greater part than objective laws in the decision-making process. These inconsistencies give rise to suspicions over the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. A key concern of European jurisdictions is proportionality and necessity, as seen in the assessment of detention; a commitment to human rights protection has been seen in many European jurisdictions.
Due process protections are again illustrated in the context of criminal investigations, where police authorities exercise their own power. Effective law enforcement and prevention of abuse of power are akin to a fine line for criminal investigations. Amagnya (2022) discussed police prosecutions and found that there were issues about instances involving overlapping roles between the police and prosecutors. Poorly defined duties between the investigative and prosecutive agencies may create a risk of compromise of the fairness of the procedure. The separation of police and prosecution in the United Kingdom and most of the European Union jurisdictions is greater than in most other jurisdictions, but there is a continuing debate about issues of discretion, bias, and accountability. A separation of investigative and prosecutive functions is a valuable protection against the possibility of miscarriage of justice and unfair procedure.
As technology has advanced and digital evidence has become a greater issue, search and seizure protections are becoming ever more complex. Traditional legal rules pertaining to search were created mostly with respect to tangible items and physical evidence. Today, however, with the rise of electronic communications, cloud storage, and data that spans several jurisdictions, criminal investigations can become an electronic game. But, in today's world, with electronic communication, cloud storage systems, and data in several jurisdictions, the task of investigation may be an electronic game. In the case of cross-border investigations, Casino et al. (2022) stated that most often, there are law-related obstacles, such as divergent state laws, data access regulations, and privacy laws. The issues are such that a compromise between privacy and constitutional protection and the investigative needs is required between legal system provisions.
The EU has demonstrated more restrictive views on 'uneditable' evidence in the context of illegally obtained evidence. Panzavolta & Maes (2022) believe the use of such exclusionary rules can foster the respect of due process because they make illegal searches and violations of individual rights undesirable and less likely. The U.K. has a more liberal history of granting admissibility to evidence. This difference is indicative of the civil law-common law distinction in general. Both operate on the principle of equality, but the European Union generally leans towards stability when it comes to the rights granted, whereas the U.K. leans towards judicial discretion.
Perhaps the greatest future threat to the protection of due process arises from emerging technologies. AI is being increasingly adopted to forecast crime events, to make risk assessments, and to design crime prevention strategies. These tools have the promise of developing resource optimization and efficiency, but also present dangers of transparency and accountability. As with many algorithmic systems, Blount (2022) cautions, the algorithm is a “black box,” and it can be hard for defendants and lawyers to understand “how [such] decisions are made.” Such transparency may jeopardize the rights of due process and heighten the possibility of discriminatory outcomes occurring. Indeed, Zilka et al. (2022) highlight the necessity of oversight and governance to hold algorithmic decision-making to account and make it comprehensible. The EU seems to have materially undertaken a more restrictive regime with greater emphasis on human rights' protections, whereas the United Kingdom has maintained a moderate approach, that is, with greater emphasis on requirements for innovation-related oversight.
Overall, there is a similarity that both the UK and the EU have adhered to due process in the criminal justice system and the rule of law. They have some differences in how they put or may put into practice procedural safeguards, evidence control, and new technology issues. Both will constantly have to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges thrown at them by the growth of AI, digital evidence, and transnational crime, but retain the very principles of democratic justice that are the starting point of our rights.
Conclusion
In summation, EU jurisdictions tend to be more consistent and settled on how rights will be treated (and more important), UK common law bases allow for greater flexibility in judicial interpretation. The systems are, however, increasingly affected by new issues like the use of artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime cases that take them into issues where existing procedural safeguards are affected. In moving forward, both governments need to evolve and maintain fundamental democratic values of fairness, justice, and respect for human rights.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**outline.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/outline-docx-10560329)
**LiteratureReview.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview-docx-10560327)