In the due process model, determination guilt or offense relies on the judicial decision while in crime control model guilt is established during arrest (Crime & Disorder Act Review, 2006; Criminal Justice System [CJS], 2008a).
In either perspective, there are requirements of proof for the determination of guilt and are both considered equitable. The source of the debate however are in the pre-crime and post-criminology treatment of suspected and actual offenders and in the crime prevention programs implemented (Zedner, 2007). The objective of this paper is to evaluate the debate between due process and crime control models and how they affect policies in criminal justice programs. In the course of this objective, the research will map changes in these perspectives and the mode of these developments. At the end of the paper, the research will be able to determine if the statement that continuous change is a predominant feature of contemporary criminal justice is valid.
According to Hepburn and Goodstein (1986), criminal justice reforms are organization initiatives to develop programs that respond and reflect to sociological perspectives on the development and prevalence of crime. Though reforms have been initiated mostly through social action, the implementations of reforms entail legislative or judicial action (Lupton, 1999; Lint, 2007). There are also a number of ways and modes for the advancement of reforms programs. In the United States for example, criminal justice reforms traces its roots in the Pennsylvania Prison Society, considered as the original society-based or lobby group for penal reform in the country (Pillsbury, 1989). While in the case of the United Kingdom, criminal justice reforms were developed in legislative assemblies and were enforced as acts of parliament considered to be more political than social actions (Stenson & Sullivan, 2000; Parks, 2007).
In the studies done by Gorton and Boies (1999) and Keith (2002) penal reforms are among the most sensitive to change and have historically been the focus of criminal justice reforms. However, recent trends have shown greater emphasis on crime prevention, social collaboration in rehabilitation and integration (Squires, 2006). Increasing cost of criminal justice proceedings, penal systems and rehabilitation programs as well researches emphasizing the rehabilitation of offenders have all contributed to the divergence from punitive regiments (Kemshall & Maguire, 2001). Hughes (1998; 2007) points out that this level of sensitivity and responsiveness is also dependent on changing trends in social perspectives and existing state capacity to implement criminal justice programs. He notes that the changes are not changes in held values but rather changes in the approach of providing a means to pursue offenders and deliver restitution to victims.
Trends and Modes of Change
Criminal justice programs were developed to create channels for the punishment and delivery of justice. Historical evidence suggests that they were established to prevent clan or blood feuds and to diminish the need for private security and arms building. Wilkinson (1997) credits this to the development of the Code of Hammurabi developed in Babylon, the Code of Ur-Nammi of Sumer as well as in the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables. The development of