Skip to main content

Correlates of Due Process

  • Chapter
Human Rights

Part of the book series: Policy Studies Organization Series ((PSOS))

  • 42 Accesses

Abstract

One widely recognized method of constraining the abuse of coercion by the state is due process, which requires that the government does not deny or remove an individual’s property or freedom without showing cause and following proper legal procedures. The strategy of due process is to ‘present formidable impediments’ to the state’s use of force against its citizens (Packer, 1968, p. 163). Due process is the most fundamental right of free people because it is the primary mechanism through which all other individual rights and liberties are protected from encroachment by the government. In a seminal work, Packer (1968) presented two models of the judicial system representing competing value systems. The central value of his ‘crime control’ model was the repression of criminal conduct. A judicial system incorporating crime control values would operate in a way that would be analogous to an assembly line. The movement from arrest to incarceration would be efficient; though some innocent persons might be punished, few guilty persons would go free. The central value of the ‘due process’ model was protection of individual rights and liberties from violation by the state. If the crime control model resembled an assembly line, the due process model resembled an obstacle course.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • ALI, B. (1969) Treatment of Prisoners in Nine Nations: A Pilot Study on Standard Minimum Rules’, Criminologica, 7: 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BECKER, T. L. (1970) Comparative Judicial Politics (Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally).

    Google Scholar 

  • BOLI-BENNETT, J. (1981) ‘Human Rights or State Expansion: Cross-National Definitions of Constitutional Rights, 1870–1970’, in Ved P. Nanda, James R. Scarrett and George W. Shepherd, Jr. (eds), Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures, and NGO Strategies, pp. 289–304 (Boulder, Co.: Westview Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • CAPPELLETTI, M. and GARTH, B. (1978) Access to Justice: A World Survey (Milan, Italy: Sijthoff and Noordhoff Publishing Company).

    Google Scholar 

  • CINGRANELLI, D. L. and WRIGHT, K. N. (1985) ‘A Comparison of National Criminal Justice Practices’, Journal of Crime and Justice, 8: 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CINGRANELLI, D. L. and PASQUARELLO, T. N. (1985) ‘Human Rights Practices and the Distribution of US Foreign Aid Among Latin American Countries’, The American Journal of Political Science, 29: 539–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DAVID, R. and BRIERLY, J. E. C. (1978) Major Legal Systems in the World Today: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Law (London: Stevens and Sons).

    Google Scholar 

  • DAVIS, K. C. (1971) Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • DAVIS, K. C. (1976) Discretionary Justice in Europe and America (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • DOLESCHAL, E. (1977) ‘Race and Length of Imprisonment: How Does the US Compare with the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden’, Crime and Delinquency, 23: 51–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DUCHACEK, I. D. (1973) Rights and Liberties in the World Today (Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-Clio).

    Google Scholar 

  • DURKHEIM, E. (1958) Professional Ethics and Civic Morals (Glencoe: The Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • FRIEDMAN, L. M. (1969) ‘Legal Cultures and Social Development’, Law and Society Review, 4, 1: 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GALTUNG, J. (1971) ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research, 8: 81–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GASTIL, R. (1980) ‘The Comparative Survey of Freedom’, Freedom at Issue 54: 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • KRISLOV, S. and KVAVIK, R. B. (1984) ‘Political Development and Emergent Theories of Legal Evolution’. Paper presented at the 1984 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • KURIAN, G. (1982) Book of World Rankings (New York, NY: Facts on File).

    Google Scholar 

  • PACKER, H. (1968) Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • POUND, R. (1942) Social Control Through Law (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • OUINNEY, R. (1969) Crime and Justice in Society (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown).

    Google Scholar 

  • ROSH, B. (1987) ‘Ethnic Cleavage as a Component of Global Militarization’, Journal of Peace Research, 24, 1: 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCHMIDHAUSER, J. R. (1982) ‘The Circulation of Judicial Elites: A Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective’, in Moshe M. Czudnowski (ed.), Does Who Governs Matter? (De Kalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHOULTZ, L. (1980) ‘U.S. Foreign Policy and Human Rights’, Comparative Politics, 13: 149–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCHUBERT, G. (1968) ‘Ideological Distance: A Smallest Space Analysis Across Three Cultures’, Comparative Political Studies, 1: 319–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHUBERT, G. and DANELSKI, D. J. (1969) Comparative Judicial Behavior (New York: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • SKOLER, D. L. (1975) World Implementation of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners (Washington, DC: American Bar Association Commission on Correctional Facilities and Services).

    Google Scholar 

  • STEPHENS, O. H. (1976) ‘Equal Justice and Counsel Rights in the United States and Canada’, in Richard P. Claude (ed.) Comparative Human Rights, pp. 161–83 (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • STRAUSE, J. C. and CLAUDE, R. P. (1976) ‘Empirical Comparative Rights Research: Some Preliminary Tests of Development Hypotheses’, in Richard P. Claude (ed.), Comparative Human Rights (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • TIGAR, M. E. and LEVY, M. R. (1977) Law and the Rise of Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • US DEPARTMENT OF STATE (1981) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).

    Google Scholar 

  • WEBER, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Glencoe: The Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • WRIGHT, K. N. and CINGRANELLI, D. L. (1985) ‘Inhumane, Cruel, and Degrading Treatment of Criminal Prisoners Throughout the World’, Justice Quarterly, 2, 3: 345–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1988 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cingranelli, D.L., Wright, K.N. (1988). Correlates of Due Process. In: Cingranelli, D.L. (eds) Human Rights. Policy Studies Organization Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10122-1_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics