Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mx8w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T08:10:32.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Due Process

from Part III - Criminal Justice and Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Lucia Zedner  and
Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg
Edited by
Kai Ambos ,
Antony Duff ,
Julian Roberts ,
Thomas Weigend  and
Alexander Heinze
Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Get access

Summary

‘Due process’ is a central concept in Anglo-American criminal justice that safeguards the rights of those subject to the criminal process and guides state officials, vital to the authority of the criminal law and the legitimacy of the legal system. Comparison reveals what is distinctive about Anglo-American and German conceptions of due process, and how far their development is the product of their legal history and local legal culture. As Galligan observes of dispute over ‘whether the adversarial nature of the trial at common law is to be preferred to the more inquisitorial procedures of continental Europe … the real debate in comparing the two approaches is not about which will lead to more correct outcomes, but rather what values are relevant’. Comparative analysis permits a better understanding of what is distinctive in the respective systems. It reveals what commonalities exist and to what extent international developments, not least the important jurisprudence on the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), foster convergence among signatory states.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 304 - 342
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allan, T. R. S., ‘Procedural Fairness and the Duty of Respect’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18 (1998), 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, T. R. S., Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
Allan, T. R. S., ‘The Rule of Law’, in Dyzenhaus, D. and Thorburn, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Victims’ Rights, Defendants’ Rights and Criminal Procedure’, in Crawford, A. and Goodey, J. (eds.), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice, Aldershot, Ashgate (2000).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Horder, J., The Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn, Oxford University Press (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Redmayne, M., The Criminal Process, 4th edn, Oxford University Press (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Zedner, L., ‘Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2 (2008), 21–51.Google Scholar
Baratta, A., ‘Zur Entwicklung des modernen Rechtsstaatsbegriffs’, in Baer-Kaufert, F.-W., Leistner, G. and Schwaiger, H. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernhard C. H. Aubin, Straßburg N.P., Engel Verlag (1979), 1–14.Google Scholar
Beetham, D., The Legitimation of Power, London, Macmillan (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books (1753).Google Scholar
Böckenförde, E.-W., ‘Entstehung und Wandel des Rechtsstaatsbegriffs’, in Böckenförde, E.-W. (ed.), Recht, Staat, Freiheit, 6th edn, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp (2016), 143–69.Google Scholar
Bohlander, M., Principles of German Criminal Procedure, Oxford, Hart (2012).Google Scholar
Bottoms, A. E. and Tankebe, J., ‘Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to Legitimacy in Criminal Justice’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102 (2012), 119–70.Google Scholar
Bradford, B., ‘Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and Cooperation between Police and Public’, Policing and Society, 24 (2014), 22–43.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. and Pettit, P., Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Carpzov, B., Practica Nova Imperialis Saxonica Rerum Criminalium, Wittenberg, Haered. Zachariae Schureri Senior (1635).Google Scholar
Chan, J., ‘Changing Police Culture’, British Journal of Criminology, 36 (1996), 109–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D., ‘Against Citizenship as a Predicate for Basic Rights’, Fordham Law, 75 (2007), 2541–8.Google Scholar
College of Policing, Code of Ethics: A Code of Practice for the Principles and Standards of Professional Behaviour for the Policing Profession in England and Wales, London, College of Policing (2014).Google Scholar
Council of Europe, The ECHR in Facts and Figures 2016, European Court of Human Rights (2017), available at www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_2016_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar
Damaška, M., The Faces of Justice and State Authority, New Haven, Yale University Press (1986).Google Scholar
Darbyshire, P., ‘The Mischief of Plea Bargaining and Sentencing Rewards’, Criminal Law Review, 79 (2000), 895–910.Google Scholar
Dettmar, J. S., Legalität und Opportunität im Strafprozess, Berlin, Wissenschafts-Verlag (2008).Google Scholar
Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th edn, London, Macmillan (1958).Google Scholar
Dölling, D., Polizeiliche Ermittlungstätigkeit und Legalitätsprinzip, 2 vols. Wiesbaden, BKA-Forschungsreihe (1987), I.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘The Criminal Trial and the Legitimation of Punishment’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2004), I, 85–100.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A. et al., The Trial on Trial: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2007), III.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle, Oxford University Press (1985).Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., ‘Terror and the Attack on Civil Liberties’, The New York Review of Books, 50 (2003).Google Scholar
Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A. and MacDonald, A., Human Rights and Criminal Justice, 3rd edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2012).Google Scholar
Erb, V., Legalität und Opportunität, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1999).Google Scholar
Feeley, M., The Process is the Punishment, New York, Russell Sage Foundation (1979).Google Scholar
Follain, J., Vendetta: The Mafia, Judge Falcone and the Quest for Justice, London, Hodder & Stoughton (2012).Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J., Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar
Gärditz, K. F., ‘Art. 20, 6. Teil: Rechtsstaatsprinzip’, in Kahl, W., Waldhof, C. and Walter, C. (eds.), Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 25 vols., Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2018).Google Scholar
Garrett, B., Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations, Harvard University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Glaser, J., ‘Das Princip der Strafverfolgung’, in Glaser, J., Gesammelte kleinere juristische Schriften – Teil 1: Kleine Schriften über Strafrecht und Strafproceß, 2nd edn, Vienna, Manz (1883), 521–45.Google Scholar
Goss, R., Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford, Hart (2014).Google Scholar
Grote, R., ‘Rule of Law, Rechtsstaat and “Etat de droit”’, in Starck, C. (ed.), Constitutionalism, Universalism and Democracy: A Comparative Analysis, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1999), 269–306.Google Scholar
Gürtner, F., ‘Der Gedanke der Gerechtigkeit in der deutschen Strafrechtserneuerung’, in Gürtner, F. and Freisler, R. (eds.), Das neue Strafrecht, Berlin, Decker (1936), 19–31.Google Scholar
Hamm, R., ‘Der Einsatz heimlicher Ermittlungsmethoden und der Anspruch auf ein faires Verfahren’, Strafverteidiger (2001), 81–5.Google Scholar
Hawkins, K., Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-Making in a Regulatory Agency, Oxford University Press (2002), 424–7.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T., Leviathan, Oxford University Press (2008 [1651]).Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., ‘Conceptions of the Trial in Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2006), II, 223–42.Google Scholar
Home Office, Justice for All, London, HMSO (2002).Google Scholar
Home Office, Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in Favour of the Law-Abiding Majority: Cutting Crime, Reducing Reoffending and Protecting the Public, London, HMSO (2006).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Democratic Accountability and Lay Participation in Criminal Trials’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2006), II, 135–53.Google Scholar
Hoyle, C., ‘Victims of the State: Recognising the Harms Caused by Wrongful Convictions’, in Bosworth, M., Hoyle, C. and Zedner, L. (eds.), Changing Contours of Criminal Justice: Research, Politics and Policy, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Hoyle, C. and Sato, M., Reasons to Doubt: Wrongful Convictions and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar
Hunter, J. et al., The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory to Practice, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar
Hyman, T., ‘The Little Word “Due”’, Akron Law Review, 38 (2005), 1–51.Google Scholar
Issacharoff, S., Civil Procedure, St Paul-Minneapolis, Foundation Press (2012).Google Scholar
Jackson, J., ‘Justice for All – Putting Victims at the Heart of Criminal Justice?’, Journal of Law and Society, 30 (2003), 309–26.Google Scholar
Jahn, M., ‘Fair trial als strafprozessuales Leitprinzip im Mehrebenensystem’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 127 (2015), 549–615.Google Scholar
Jhering, R. von, Geist des römischen Rechts, 6th edn, Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig (1923).Google Scholar
Jung, H., Straffreiheit für den Kronzeugen?, Cologne, Heymanns (1974).Google Scholar
Kelman, D., ‘Closed Trials and Secret Allegations: An Analysis of the “Gisting” Requirement’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 80 (2016), 264–77.Google Scholar
Kirste, S., ‘Philosophical Foundations of the Principle of the Legal State (Rechtsstaat) and the Rule of Law’, in Silkenat, J. R., Hickey, J. E. Jr. and Barenboim, P. D. (eds.), The Legal Doctrines of the Rule of Law and the Legal State (Rechtsstaat), New York, Springer (2014), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühne, H.-H., Strafprozessrecht, 9th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2015).Google Scholar
Loughlin, M., Foundations of Public Law, Oxford University Press (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBarnet, D., ‘False Dichotomies in Criminal Justice Research’, in Baldwin, J. and Bottomley, A. K. (eds.), Criminal Justice: Selected Readings, Oxford, Martin Robertson (1978), 23–34.Google Scholar
McBarnet, D., Conviction: Law, the State, and the Construction of Justice, London, Macmillan (1983).Google Scholar
McConville, M., Sanders, A. and Leng, R., The Case for the Prosecution: Police Suspects and the Construction of Criminality, London, Routledge (1991).Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., ‘Der Rechtsstaat und die rule of law’, Juristen-Zeitung, 39 (1984), 65–70.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Macdonald, S., ‘Constructing a Framework for Criminal Justice Research: Learning from Packer’s Mistakes’, New Criminal Law Review, 11 (2008), 257–311.Google Scholar
McEwan, J., ‘Ritual, Fairness and Truth: The Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Criminal Trial’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2004), I, 51–69.Google Scholar
Marshall, G., ‘Due Process in England’, in Pennock, J. R. and Chapman, J. W. (eds.), Due Process, New York University Press (1977), 69–92.Google Scholar
Mayer, O., Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht, 1st edn, 2 vols. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot (1895), I.Google Scholar
Meares, T. L., Tyler, T. R. and Gardener, J., ‘Lawful or Fair?: How Cops and Laypeople Perceive Good Policing’, Journal of Criminology and Criminal Law, 105 (2016), 297–344.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-Y., ‘The Rule of Law and the Rechtsstaat Concept: A Comparison’, in McWhinney, E. (ed.), Federalism in the Making: Contemporary Canadian and German Constitutionalism, National and Transnational, Dordrecht, Kluwer (1992), 60–86.Google Scholar
Neuberger Lord, D. E., ‘JUSTICE – Justice in an Age of Austerity’, available at www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-131015.pdf.Google Scholar
Nickel, J. W., ‘Due Process Rights and Terrorist Emergencies’, European Journal of Legal Studies, 1 (2007), 243–64.Google Scholar
Orth, J., Due Process of Law: A Brief History, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas (2003).Google Scholar
Packer, H. L., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, Stanford University Press (1968).Google Scholar
Phillips, C. and Bowling, B., ‘Ethnicities, Racism, Crime and Criminal Justice’, in Liebling, A., Maruna, S. and Mcara, L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford University Press (2017), 190–212.Google Scholar
Ramraj, V. V., ‘Four Models of Due Process’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2 (2004), 492–524.Google Scholar
Redmayne, M., ‘Exploring Entrapment’, in Zedner, L. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2012), 157–70.Google Scholar
Rieß, P., ‘Einleitung’, in Rieß, P. (ed.), Löwe-Rosenberg, Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommentar, 25th edn, 8 vols., Berlin, De Gruyter (1999), I.Google Scholar
Ristroph, A., ‘The Thin Blue Line from Crime to Punishment’, Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Papers, 108 (2018), 305–34.Google Scholar
Roach, K., Due Process and Victims’ Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice, University of Toronto Press (1999).Google Scholar
Roach, K., ‘Four Models of the Criminal Process’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89 (1999), 671–716.Google Scholar
Roach, K., ‘Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35 (2010), 388–446.Google Scholar
Roberts, P., ‘Theorising Procedural Tradition: Subjects, Objects and Values in Criminal Adjudication’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, Oxford, 3 vols., Hart (2006), II, 37–64.Google Scholar
Roberts, P., ‘Comparative Criminal Justice Goes Global’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28 (2008), 369–91.Google Scholar
Roberts, P., ‘Groundwork for a Jurisprudence of Criminal Procedure’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. P. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 380–408.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Schünemann, B., Strafverfahrensrecht, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Sanders, A., Young, R. and Burton, M., Criminal Justice, 4th edn, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., ‘Gerechtigkeit und Zweckmäßigkeit in Geschichte und Gegenwart der Strafrechtspflege’, in Schmidt, E., Justitia fundamentum regnorum, Heidelberg, Schriften der Süddeutschen Juristen-Zeitung (1947), 75–98.Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., ‘Von Sinn und Notwendigkeit wissenschaftlicher Behandlung des Strafprozeßrechts’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 65 (1953), 161–77.Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., Lehrkommentar zur Strafprozeßordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, 3 vols., 2nd edn, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht (1964), I.Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., Einführung in die Geschichte der deutschen Strafrechtspflege, 3rd edn, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht (1965).Google Scholar
Shipley, D. E., ‘Due Process Rights before EU Agencies: The Rights of Defense’, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 37 (2008), 1–52.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., Untersuchungen zur Unschuldsvermutung, Berlin, De Gruyter (1998).Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘§ 257c StPO’, in Erb, V., Esser, R., Franke, U., Graalmann-Scheerer, K., Hilger, H. and Ignor, A. (eds.), Löwe-Rosenberg, Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommentar, 26th edn, 13 vols., Berlin, De Gruyter (2013), VI/II.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Gründe für die Abschaffung des § 153a StPO’, in Herzog, F., Schlothauer, R. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte, Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin (2016), 369–89.Google Scholar
Stumer, A. C., The Presumption of Innocence, Oxford, Hart (2010).Google Scholar
Tadros, V., ‘A Human Right to a Fair Criminal Law’, in Chalmers, J. and Leverick, F. (eds.), Essays in Criminal Law in Honour of Sir Gerald Gordon, Edinburgh University Press (2010), 103–25.Google Scholar
Tankebe, J. and Liebling, A. (eds.), Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Tyler, T., Why People Obey the Law, New Haven, Yale University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Tyler, T., ‘Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law’, Crime and Justice, 30 (2003), 283–357.Google Scholar
Tyler, T., Jackson, J. and Bradford, B., ‘Psychology of Procedural Justice and Cooperation’, in Bruinsma, G. and Weisburd, D. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, New York, Springer (2014).Google Scholar
Waddington, P. A. J., ‘Police (Canteen) Sub-Culture: An Appreciation’, British Journal of Criminology, 39 (1999), 287–309.Google Scholar
Waldron, J., ‘Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11 (2003), 191–210.Google Scholar
Ward, J., ‘Transforming “Summary Justice” through Police-Led Prosecution and “Virtual Courts”: Is “Procedural Due Process” Being Undermined?’, The British Journal of Criminology, 55 (2015), 341–58.Google Scholar
Weber, M., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 5th edn, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (1972).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Why Have a Trial when You Can Have a Bargain?’, in Duff, R. A. et al. (eds.), The Trial on Trial, 3 vols., Oxford, Hart (2006), II, 207–22.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘No News Is Good News: Criminal Sentencing in Germany since 2000’, in Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Justice, 45 (2016), 83–106.Google Scholar
Wilmot-Smith, F., ‘Necessity or Ideology?’, The London Review of Books, 36 (2014), 15–17.Google Scholar
Wohlers, W., ‘Einleitung’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 10 vols., 5th edn, Cologne, Heymanns (2018), I.Google Scholar
Zachariae, H. A., Die Gebrechen und die Reform des deutschen Strafverfahrens dargestellt auf der Basis einer consequenten Entwickelung des inquisitorischen und des accusatorischen Prinzips, Göttingen, Verlag der Dieterich’schen Buchhandlung (1846).Google Scholar
Zachariae, H. A., Handbuch des deutschen Strafprocesses, 2 vols., Göttingen, Verlag der Dieterich’schen Buchhandlung (1861), I.Google Scholar
Zedner, L., Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar
Zedner, L, ‘Seeking Security By Eroding Rights: The Side-Stepping of Due Process’, in Goold, B. and Lazarus, L. (eds.), Security and Human Rights, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Zedner, L, ‘Criminal Justice in the Service of Security’, in Bosworth, M., Hoyle, C. and Zedner, L. (eds.), The Changing Contours of Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Zedner, L, ‘Security against Arbitrary Government in Criminal Justice’, in du Bois-Pedain, A., Ulväng, M. and Asp, P. (eds.), Criminal Law and the Authority of the State, Oxford, Hart (2017).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×