Discuss the arguments for and against the use of Closed Material Term Paper

dissertate the arguments for and against the use of Closed Material Procedures (CMP) in national credentials matters - Term Paper ExampleThus, courts in many cases, fool to deny nettle of specific documents or information to individuals, from the point of view of in the public eye(predicate) interest. Though such measures have been introduced with the primary objective of safeguarding public interest, the issue of CMP has become a disputed topic due to its far-reaching implication of the criminal justice system as a whole. In commonplace court proceedings, individuals and their legal representatives are allowed to be present and learn all the documents that are allowed as evidences in a case during the trial and such proceedings are known as open procedure. However, in cases where the examination of any documents by individuals is considered as a breach of national security, individuals are not allowed to examine the relevant document and such materials are known as closed ma terials.3 However, a government appointed lawyer, who represents the individual, or Special Advocate, will be allowed to attend all parts of the proceedings and extended access to all the documents examined during the trial.4 This is to ensure that the government preserves a strong and independent judiciary to protect the rights and granting immunity of its citizens.5 On the other hand, the government has a primary responsibility for protecting national security to imprimatur the safety and security of the citizens. Thus, it becomes significant that the government strikes a balance between the protection of national security and safeguarding the rights and exemption of individuals. The debate regarding CMPs, thus, focuses its attention on protecting the national security without injuring or compromising the concepts of the freedom of individuals and facilitating them a charming trial. One of the main arguments against CMPs is that the system of suppressing material is inherently unfair and that a listening that disallows individuals from being present or examining the documents undermines the credibility of the legal system.6 The opponents of CMPs further argue that the system of allowing the prosecution, usually represent by the government, to present its case without extending the defence an opportunity of public scrutiny is against the principles of justice.7 They also contend that by from the inherent risks associated with CMP, it considerably reduces the degree of judicial and Ministerial scrutiny of how the cases are tried and this can have a detrimental effect on transparency and accountability of justice system as healthful as compromise its credibility.8 Thus, the main argument against CMPs relies on the premise that this practice undermines the concept of fair trial to individuals as in this system they are not allowed to examine all the documents that the prosecution relies on for the purpose of proving their case. It is needless to mention that when a defendant is disallowed the opportunity of viewing a prosecution document, it inevitably pre-empts him or her from properly preparing his or her defence. Thus, this procedure, to a