Packer's Idealism Model

The criminal procedure system in Scotland has been under scrutiny for a number of years . There is a constant need for the procedure to balance the rights of the people accused with that of the States’ investigations. In 1964, Packer introduced his idealism models that aimed to provide two completely different systems to take the “struggle” that he refers to as the criminal procedure. With the introduction of theses models it is believed that they create a spectrum of the idealism balances within the system. Packer’s two models have completely different aspects. Crime control focuses on the power of the state, arresting and convicting someone in a “conveyor belt” style with little regard to the individual. In contrasted, due process tries
Both of these have a clear element of state power overriding that of the accused rights’. If they are remanded in prison then there is a clear power by the state as you are under their custody. However when released on bail there will still be conditions in which you must adhere to. These “standard conditions” are set out under the 1995 act in s.24(4) and (5). Alongside the standard conditions applied to all accused there may also be conditions to ensure that they make themselves available for any identifications or samples that may be need to be taken such as finger prints or impressions . These conditions will be imposed on the accused until the time of trial. It may be shown that these try to balance to laws of criminal procedure in favor of the state as it allows them to keep track of the accused before they are put up in trial. This will mean that the suspect will be limited in his movements around the time of the trial and may been seen as restricting the rights of free movement within their day to day
A court case may bring a case within a Solemn or Summary procedure. Summary procedures will be used for less serious cases within the courthouse and may be conducted without a jury. Solemn is different on the case that it is most likely to lead to a trial before a judge or sheriff and will always be conducted with a jury. The burden of proof on the crown may be seen as largely unfair in terms of the crown ability to do so. The standard of proof on the crown compared to the defense is greater. The defense is only required to balance their proof on the balance of probabilities whereas the crown must been a standard which is beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof ‘ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat is Latin to mean’ “the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies”. This coincides with the presumption of innocence that is afforded to all. The presumption of innocence is a worldwide fundamental principle that has been given human rights status having being written into article 6(2) . There is an overhanding presence about just how vast the rights given by the presumption of innocence are. Scholars often doubt the widely praised use of presumption of innocence. Many argue the process should be limited to the trial of the accused rather than the fact it is extended out to pretrial and sentencing . If this was the case, then it may be seen that