Crime Control versus Due Process - Research Paper Example

Crime Control versus Due Process of Your School Introduction Within the criminal justice system of the United s, there are two distinct models or theories of criminal justice. Each one has specific schools of thought, although they were initially developed by the same person, Stanford University professor Herbert Packer in 1968 (http://www.sociologyindex.com/crime_control_model.htm). These two theories of thought each approach the concepts of crime and crime prevention differently, making the two models opposite in terms of their point of view regarding criminal justice. While the two theories are opposite in their beliefs about criminal justice, the proponents of both sides must work together within the established criminal justice system, following laws and the legal process and procedures of the United States. The two models of criminal justice serve no legal purpose other than to give names and definitions to the most common perspectives towards criminal justice. The models serve as a way to talk about criminal justice and can serve as an aid to determine how a person might approach a criminal justice issue based on which theory they subscribe to. The two models can also compare to political viewpoints in terms of being considered either conservative or liberal. The crime control model is considered conservative in nature while the due process model is more liberal (Perron). Those believing that criminals should be treated as such and that there should be aggressive measure taken towards crime, are most often proponents of the crime control model, while those who feel people should not be beleaguered, that there are processes in place that should be followed and that law enforcement agencies are not the be all and end all of the criminal justice system are typically followers of the due process model. Crime Control Model According to U.S. Legal Definitions, the crime control model, “refers to a theory of criminal justice which places emphasis on reducing the crime in society through increased police and prosecutorial powers”. This model is based on the notion that police, detectives and forensic workers are at the forefront of the criminal justice system and that their findings are almost always valid and reliable. Alleged offenders are considered to be guilty because those working in the criminal justice system have already conducted the research necessary to arrest the correct person (http://www.sociologyindex.com/crime_control_model.htm). The crime control theory focuses on keeping the public safe. Protecting the rights of individuals is less important than keeping the public as a whole safe. The main objective of the crime control theory is to use all available methods to prevent crime (http://www.sociologyindex.com/crime_control_model.htm). This is an assertive approach to crime. Proponents of the crime control method believe that criminals should be pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The term, “war on crime” is a popular term used, especially during election time. This term corresponds directly to the crime control model of criminal justice (Perron). In action, the crime control model involves law enforcement agencies developing strategies to target and prevent crime. This may include increased police appearance in areas known for high crime, undercover operations, increased traffic stops, increased follow up from anonymous tips and increased number of raids and searches (Perron). Those approving of the crime control model are in favor of law enforcement officials keeping the focus on catching and prosecuting the bad guys. Dangerous areas have increased police presence, which people living in those neighborhoods like. There have been reductions in crime, which benefits everyone, especially those living in high crime areas (Perron). When viewed in this manner, there is little fault to be found with this theory of criminal justice. However, there are some concerns with this approach to criminal justice. There can be mistakes made. For example, tips from informants can be wrong and raids can be conducted in incorrect locations. There can also be innocent bystanders injured or killed when they happen to be in the wrong place and the wrong time during a police raid or arrest (Perron). The crime control model is an aggressive approach with the goal to prevent crime, so there can be instances of over zealousness. Due Process Model The due process model is defined as a theory that, “focuses on individual liberties and rights and is concerned with limiting the powers of government” (http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/crime-control-model/). While this model is in agreement with the crime prevention model in terms wanting crime to be reduced and criminals to be prosecuted, the approach is somewhat different. Proponents of this model focus on the rights of the people. The notion that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is at the forefront of the due process theory. Faith is put in the legal system to determine who is innocent and guilty (Perron). In reality, the due process model is carried out through the court process. Believers in this model agree that each individual case and person deserves to be considered on the basis of the facts of each case and that those facts should be considered carefully without prejudice. In action, this requires law enforcement officials to recognize the civil rights of suspects. Suspects must be arrested, questioned and prosecuted according to the law or even if they committed the crime, they cannot be found guilty. There is a process that must be followed and everyone is entitled to that process, thus the name, due process. People must be read their Miranda rights upon being arrested. They are entitled to have a lawyer and have the right to plead the Fifth Amendment in order to not persecute themselves. They have a right to a fair trial with a jury of their peers and have a right for the evidence to be gathered accurately and purely, without manipulation from those with access to the evidence. Persons following the due process school of thought are not opposed to putting criminals in jail or giving them just consequences. They simply want everyone to have the opportunity to be found guilty of their crime fairly and to be treated humanely during the process. The Fourth Amendment also comes into play in the due process model. This amendment covers the right that people have for probable cause. Those promoting the crime control model believe that the fourth amendment can hinder law enforcement officials from gathering critical evidence. They state that it takes time to gather a search warrant and demonstrate probable cause and in the time that is wasted, evidence can be moved or destroyed. Those in favor of the due process model believe strongly that there needs to be a reason for search and seizure and that getting a warrant and demonstrating probable cause is the best method to ensure innocent people are not having to experience unnecessary search and seizures (Perron). Similarities Both models can be considered to want the goal of less crime and criminals punished appropriately. Proponents from each side strive to have the correct people prosecuted and want to see crime rates reduced (Zalman, 2002). It is their method of going about it and their actions within the legal system that differ. Ultimately, everyone wants a safer society in which to live. A disadvantage to both models is that mistakes can be made and that may lead to innocent people getting hurt or wrongly convicted. This is because the criminal justice system is based on the performance of people and people are not perfect. Law enforcement officers make mistakes, forensic experts may contaminate evidence, detectives may miss important evidence and witnesses may have faulty memories or may not be truthful. There are a myriad of things that can happen with either model to make them imperfect. Best Model While both models have strong points to offer, in practice it won’t work to have them operating equally, one must be emphasized more than the other (Simson, 2010). The best approach to believe in is the due process model. This model has the amendments of the United States Constitution at its core. This model approaches the alleged criminals with the ideal that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. This is how it should be. The criminal control model has the opposite belief in that people are guilty if law enforcement believes them to be so. This is not the foundation that the United States criminal justice system was based on. While it is important to put programs in place that can prevent crime and catch criminals, it is even more important to approach crime in the correct manner. Everyone has the right to be treated fairly in that there is a process that everyone accused of a crime goes through. The procedure of due process ensures that everyone in the criminal justice system is treated the same. It does not allow for bias or subjectivity within the system. This is the biggest advantage that the due process model has over the criminal control model. Proponents of the crime control model believe that law enforcement should have the right to arrest and perform search and seizures on anyone that they suspect. This leaves room for a tremendous amount of bias. That can lead to an unfair system. The crime control model also gives law enforcement agencies too much power. There needs to be checks and balances in any fair system. The due process model provides those checks and balances. The due process theory does not allow any one organization to have too much control. Every organization within the criminal justice system plays an important role, but none are more important than the other. That is the way it should be. All departments are important, from the police, to the prosecutors and public defenders to the judges and the parole boards. With due process as the model, there is a need for the programs and philosophies that the criminal control model has to offer. It is important that law enforcement agencies continue to have a tough approach towards crime. The success that this approach has had on crime in the United States is not to be undermined. However, this, “war on crime” approach should be included as part of a due process system, not as a method of its own. Conclusion While both the crime control method and the due process method serve the purpose to identify two schools of thought towards criminal justice, neither theory has any legal power. The methods help to explain where people, especially those in political office stand on the area of crime and criminal justice. Obviously it is good to act aggressively towards preventing crime, but it is best to treat all citizens fairly and justly, even those who are guilty of committing the evilest of crimes. By going through the due process model, those who are truly guilty will receive the consequences they deserve all the while receiving the Constitutional rights they are entitled to from our forefathers. Although the models seem opposite in thought, they can easily work together to develop an even stronger criminal justice system than what is currently in place. With a continued focus on strong crime prevention and a continued focus on the Constitutional rights, namely the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments (http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10c.asp) that everyone is entitled to the United States can have the toughest, yet fairest criminal justice system of any country in the nation. The due process model stands for the ideals that the United States was founded on. This theory ensures the integrity of all aspects of the criminal justice system from the police through the court system. This is the model that we want in our country. Works Cited http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/crime-control-model. Retrieved on May 20, 2012. http://www.sociologyindex.com/crime_control_model.htm. Retrieved on May 20, 2012. http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10c.asp. Retrieved on May 21, 2012. Perron, B. The crime controls and due process models. The Criminal Defense Investigation Training Council. Simson, S. (2010). Crime control v. due process. Helium. Zalman, M. (2002). Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society (3rd Ed). Pearson Education; Prentice Hall. Read More