Models of the Criminal Justice System: Due Process vs. Crime Control

Often in the society criminal activities which are abhorrent are keenly put under control lest the society gets rendered into a state of anarchy if not taken proper care. Modern and even ancient societies have always had a definite mechanism aimed at controlling and safeguarding the upright from the rogue people. Two commonly applied forms of criminal justice to handle this noble course are the due process and the crime control. This paper thus seeks to comprehensively explore and clearly bring out the major differences and similarities and the relevant examples in the contemporary society.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In the early 1960s, Herbert Packer, a professor of law at Stanford University wrote an article about the two fundamental models of the criminal justice system. The models were the crime control and the due process. These two methods of crime control have a great deal of time been debated over, with the proponents of each coming out clearly and giving valid reasons to support their well-suited systems. Due process majorly stresses ones liberty and the relevance of granting one an opportunity to be informed before the legal proceedings. The likely suspect is also granted an opportunity to be heard before the law enforcing agency takes action. On the contrary, crime control being a more conservative approach spells out the role of the police who are highly involved in maintaining law and order alongside the prosecution powers.Under crime control, great emphasis is laid on the role the government plays in law enforcement but downplays an individuals liberty in the crime scene. It aims at protecting the society from criminals and to swiftly get over the cases.

Due process model gives credence to the rule that a person should not at all be denied of life, freedom, or property without suitable legitimate strategies and steps. Often when people are charged with offenses, they supposed to have their rights properly safeguarded and ensured by the criminal justice system under the due procedure display. However, crime control, on the other hand, showcases stronger leaning on the police fact findings and that any person reprimanded is often mistreated as if found guilty already.

Moreover, due process as always seen in the implementation always sends a clear message that use of police force in combating crime within a criminal justice system is vital in ensuring justice is not perverted at all. On the contrary, crime control model holds the position that arresting of criminals seriously slows down the criminal justice system and that it portrays a negative image of the justice system.

It is worth noting that all these legal procedures as applied in criminal justice always start with the gathering of information through various ways as stipulated and also seeking the much-needed evidence for the criminal proceedings. Under crime control model the law enforcement agencies partake the necessary actions to get the much-needed evidence. The evidence is then tabled in the courts of law and used for the proceedings. A very good example of a criminal justice system where crime control technique was used in handling a case was the case Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker et al. (2002) where the Supreme Court in Oakland, California restrained the housing authority from evicting the entire household from the place as a result of drug malpractices. Initially, there had been an agreement that anybody found to have engaged in drug abuse whether within the house or some given proximity shall be evicted. This was then termed the "one-strike" policy purposely aimed at controlling drug and gang related activities within the housing. In this case the right of the housing to evict the household was upheld. However, the family was eventually evicted from the house despite being citizens of Oakland for more than thirty years in an attempt to wipe out the drug smugglers. (Cavanagh 157)

A closer look at the United States legal system indicates that the fifth and fourteenth amendments to her Constitution each contain a due process clause Due process protects the rights of the suspects and maintains that a legal procedure must be fully followed in determining cases. The Supreme Court is mandated with the task of interpreting these clauses as they provide important protection to many parties. One relevant case in the US criminal justice system where the due process took the order of the day was the case Gitlow v. New York (1925). Apparently before 1925, some provisions in the bill of rights were not certain and guaranteed for one. One socialist Benjamin was out to show one of the attempts by the courts to incorporate. He went ahead and wrote some article about overthrowing the government. When arraigned in court he defended himself that the amendment done at first guaranteed the freedom of the press. In the long run, the court ruled in Gitlows favor by stating that his speech and article was not at all protected. This ruling was done through the due process and was a hallmark of the judicial system as it was amongst the first to incorporate the Bill of Rights (Wruck 247-287)

Summarily, having highlighted some differences in the two criminal justice systems, are not meant to cause arguments but arbitrate between conflicting parties and restore order.

Work Cited

Boulding, William, et al. A dynamic process models of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of marketing research 30.1 (1993): 7

Findley, Keith A. Toward a New Paradigm of Criminal Justice: How the Innocence Movement Mergers Crime Control and Due Process. Tex. Tech L. Rev. 41 (2008): 133

Moye, Jim. Cant Stop the Hustle: The Department of Housing and Urban Developments One Strike Eviction Policy Fails to Get Drugs out of Americas projects. BC Third World LJ23 (2003) 275

Wruck, Karen Hopper, and Michael C. Jensen. Science, specific knowledge and total quality management. Journal of AccSounting and Economics 18.3 (1994): 247-287