Two Competing Models of Justice - The Due Process Model and Crime Control Method

Elizabeth Gibbens

Assignment #1

Packer’s Analysis

I. Two Competing Models of Justice

The Due Process Model

The Due Process Model (DPM) is known as obstacle course justice with an ideology that relies on the formal structure of the law and legal guilt. (1) The DPM’s primary goals are to protect the due process rights of the accused and limiting the powers of the state. (2) This model has two values for determining justice first through the use of a formal, adjudicative fact-finding process that emphasizes the rights of the individual and second, an underlying presumption of innocence. (3) The Due Process model of justice is skeptical, allowing for the possibility of error but also has restrictions against the “morality and utility of the criminal sanction”. The system emphasizes the quality of crime prevention, with no emphasis on finality. (4) Finally, the DPM’s validating authority is judicial and requires an appeal to the legislative law of the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

(1) As stated above the primary goals of the Due Process Model are protecting the rights of the accused and guarding the citizens against abuses of power by police and other law enforcement agencies. Under this model all accused persons are seen as individual rights guarded by the Constitution and

(2) Two basic values of the Due Process Model are that it relies on legal guilt and there must be equal justice. First, the reliance on legal guilt rests beyond that of the police investigation of factual guilt. The prosecutors in the courtroom must sort through the evidence and the surrounding situations to present a case for the jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The motto of the DPM is that “it is better to allow ten guilty people to go free than lock up one innocent person”, but this does not mean that the model is reluctant to lock away criminals. This creed exhibits that legal guilt must be proven in a court of law to avoid the risk of an innocent person be convicted on false appearance while a truly guilty criminal be set free on a technicality. While the evidence may point forensics to find factual guilt of the suspect in question the legalities of the situation must be considered as well as many other scenarios beyond the police investigation and that is where courtroom proceedings are an intrinsic part to a “good” conviction under the Due Process Model. A second value is equal justice regardless of money, social status, and political connections. This ideal concept ensures that everyone gets his or her day in court. Under the Due Process Model all those who are considered suspects will receive equal representation by a lawyer to ensure their rights have not been violated.

(3) The Due Process model of justice allows for the possibility of mistakes because it is skeptical of the criminal sanctions put forth by the legislature. Packer listed concerns of police enforcing “victimless crimes” because the nature of these crimes are of consensual transactions and citizens that engage in these crimes feel that they are not committing crimes and that the government has overstepped it’s powers. If legislature were to decriminalize these activities police abuse would decrease, as would their workload leaving more time to focus on more serious crimes with real victims. The police’s limited resources would benefit society more if they were focused on serious crimes instead of crimes deemed by the legislature.

Furthermore, the DPM emphasizes the quality of crime prevention, with no emphasis on finality. Police and prosecutors that are focused on catching and convicting the criminals but are taking short cuts is a more efficient method, however, violating the accused’s rights by abuse and non-procedural methods becomes inefficient and should be penalized as such. Exclusionary rules then become necessary to deter police abuse so that the case may reach the trial stage. Judges are the determining factor that a prima facie case has been made during pretrial hearings and guilty pleas should not be encouraged by anyone other than the accused’s defense attorney. The trial has a dual concern of both factual guilt and legal guilt, however only the defense can fully appreciate the significance of legal guilt.

(4) Finally, the DPM regards the Supreme Court as the “validating authority”. The Supreme Court defines the legalities of the rights set forth by the constitution and restricts the lower court judges from interpreting the laws that would create a diversity between the states criminal sanctions and the methodologies of each states criminal proceedings.

Crime Control Model

This is a preview of the whole essay

Crime Control Model

The (CCM) is known as assembly line justice with an ideology that hinges on the efficiency and effectiveness of the system and factual guilt. (1) The CCM’s primary goals are to protect society from crime and to control the community’s behavior. (2) This model has two values for determining justice first through the police and prosecutors using an informal fact finding process and second an underlying presumption of guilt. (3) The Crime Control Model of justice is focused on detaining the accused and securing convictions. (4) Finally, the CCM regards the legislature as the most important institution because it imposes sanctions and determines laws.

(1) As stated above the primary goals of the Crime Control Model are protecting the rights of the larger community, even if this imposes on the individual accused’s rights, and controlling their behavior. The CCM motto is that it is “acceptable to trample on individual rights to protect larger community from criminals”. This creed exhibits that the model puts the community’s interests above and one person’s when that person chooses to go against the order. This model views criminal sanctions as a “positive guarantor of social freedom” which are necessary to preserve public order. The police and prosecutors are employed by the community to protect them and their property from harm and conserve social order and stability. This is first done through controlling community behavior; encouraging the society to give up individual, destructive rights for the good of the communities. The police are then to ensure that everyone upholds this “social contract”.

(2)This model has two values for determining justice through police and prosecutors using a more hasty fact finding process with an underlying presumption of guilt. The CCM places the fact-finding stage as the center of the entire process. The resources of the law enforcement agencies are limited so they must place “a premium on speed and finality” on the criminal process, which leaves no room for error or second guesses. The police and prosecutors are to be trusted under this model to not waste time and resources on innocent people to seek a conviction. Since the police conduct the fact-finding, the Crime Control Model view that the investigation should be conducted in the station houses and on the streets, not in the courts. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency the police should have broader investigative powers of conducting searches and gathering suspects in order to determine the factually guilty criminal. Additionally, all evidence will be admissible at trial regardless of how the police obtained them, under the presumption that unlike a coerced confession physical evidence (guns, etc.) will always reveal the truth.

(3) The Crime Control Model of justice is focused on detaining the accused and securing convictions, although the trial is the least important factor. Another effort to expedite the criminal investigation is to “screen out” the innocents and detain all suspects. Pretrial detention of the accused serves a dual purpose to protect the community from future crimes and ensure the suspect will be present to stand trial and not risk flight. A common idea in the CCM is that the police would not be investigating a suspect unless they had no genuine doubt of the factual guilt and pretrial detention gives the accused an early opportunity to plea guilty. An incentive for pleading guilty before the trial and saving resources will award the accused a discounted sentence. The model feels that the trial judges should “happily accept” guilty pleas without inquiring that a prima facie case has been made or if the accused had any defenses, and this ensures criminals are dealt with fairly and swiftly.

An aspect that makes this model set apart from all others is the availability of appeals on both sides of the court. The defense

(4) Finally, the CCM regards the legislature as the most important institution because it imposes sanctions and determines laws. Most politicians with the “tough on crime” policy prefer this model because it is swifter and more absolute. Some legislation handed down that reflect this model have been community policing, which regulates community behavior, and three-strikes law that has a determined sanction regardless of the insignificance of the crimes.

The Differences

Briefly, the following differences of the two models have caused clashing between them. First, the Crime Control Model focuses on the quantity of arrests, where the Due Process Model focuses on the quality of arrests. Second, the CCM works like a conveyor belt, using speed & efficiency to process criminals off the streets and into the prisons. The DPM works more like an obstacle course centers on fairness and equality for the accused. Finally, the two models differ in their presumptions of the accused; the CCM observes a mood of guilt until exonerated, while the DPM assumes everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

II. Ideal Criminal Justice System

The question arises if the two competing justice models were set in the real world could they function simultaneously to achieve the two goals of the Ideal Criminal Justice System: prevent and control crime, and distribute justice to those under the system. These goals are such that the models do have common ground with their competing fundamental ideas. The CJ system is balanced between two extremes of severity and leniency and the ideal system seeks to harmonize this balance using values from both sides.

First, both Crime Control Model and Due Process Model reach a commonality in that they both see identifying criminals and sanctioning criminal behavior are different processes that need to be dealt with as such. The CCM identifies criminals through screening everyone and narrowing down the suspects, and the DPM identifies using the police as investigative resources to find the one true suspect and avoid labeling other citizens. The CCM sanctions criminal behavior swift and harsher than the other model but because a fundamental goal is to control the behavior of the community, and harsher penalties for serious crimes sets a firm example. The DPM sanctions according to the factors of the case so that the fairest sentence, to the criminal and everyone involved, is handed down.

Second, only after probable cause has been established the criminal processing should be enforced. The CCM will not waste time and resources (in an ideal world) on innocent people so they must be sure that no reasonable doubt exists before pursuing a conviction on a suspect, even with their wide discretion on search and seizure processes. The conviction is the finality to the model and is very important the its foundation so the screening process must be thorough. The DPM is not as concerned with wrapping up the case as it is on the justice to be error free to ensure a good conviction. A legal process was established to protect an individual’s due process rights where first the police must gather enough evidence to have a suspect. Then they must prove to a judge there is reason to obtain a search warrant, and therefore must have proven that little doubt exists of the accused being a viable suspect. The prosecution is then encumbered with proving legal guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Third, both models deem that the government should have limited powers of investigation and apprehension. The CCM prefers that the police and prosecution have more power for evaluating the evidence to determine if there is sufficient justification for holding the suspect for a further determination of guilt. The judges and other government, even defense attorneys, should be kept out of the investigation until it is ready for trial, due to the concern that they will slow the procedure and interfere with a good conviction. The DPM prefers that the power be limited with the police and judges. The police limitation of power will assist in decreasing police abuse and protecting the accused from self-incrimination or coerced confession. The Judges should be limited under this model because only the Supreme Court can interpret and define the rights of people, and it is the appointed judge’s job to enforce those decisions.

Last, they both agree on an adversarial system, procedural due process, and the “day in court” notion, although the paths are different. The DPM positions itself to oppose those who seek convictions at the expense of the accused and not in a fair and just manner. It uses the court to sort through the evidence to determine legal guilt and becomes adversaries to the police and prosecutors, placing the burden of proof on them. Although the CCM feels that lawyers belong in the courtroom and not in the fact-finding process, the system should remain adversarial to the criminal element and anyone who attempts to impede their efficient methods. The DPM is fundamentally based on procedural due process, following the rights set forth by the amendments from the Constitution. The CCM follows a due process model as well, though not as stringent. It is not opposed to the rights of the individual being stripped away, but relies more on following the proper steps to ensure the rights of the larger community be protected, from the investigation to disposition as well as punishing police misconduct. The “ day in court” notion is where all cases under the DPM are to end up, even plea bargains, where the magistrate will determine if the case or plea meets all of the requirements to their sentencing accordingly. The CCM reserves the day in court for the final phase once the fact-finding has completed and the case is seen to the end.

III. Constitutional Requirements

The constitutional requirement under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments affect the Crime Control Model in a minimal way. They do not set constraints that inhibit the CCM from functioning, rather the pose obstacles to keep the system from getting above the law. The 4th amendment insures that people are to be secure against unreasonable search and seizures and warrants cannot be issued without probable cause. This in no way constrains the CCM because it simply asks that no person be searched without probable, reasonable cause, and that should fall into line with the CCM concepts of their investigation to apprehend the guilty and secure a confession. If a reasonable cause did not exist then a confession is very unlikely. Furthermore, the 4th states that the warrant must describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized; this protects against unrelated items to the crime being seized and seeking a conviction for an otherwise innocent person.

The CCM’s goal is to have a confession of guilt in order to save resources for maximum efficiency, however, the 5th amendment secures a person’s right against self-incrimination. So, unless the police coerce a confession, the guilt must be determined by investigation, and if done properly the conviction can be secured. The amendment also protects against deprivation without due process and the protection against double jeopardy. This does not impede the CCM by giving it guidelines, but it does ensure that the investigative process does not overstep its boundaries set forth by the law, and it also ensures that if the facts are in place the conviction will stay and there will be no further concern. However, if the facts were not all in and the wrong person was convicted, double jeopardy protects them from future prosecution.

Finally, the 6th amendment deals with the court proceeding of a speedy and public trial, the right to be informed of the charges against them and the right to be represented by council. The trial protects the defendant from the state detaining them for an unreasonable time while they build a case against them. However, the fact-finding investigation should not have any interest in this, per se that the accused would no longer be a suspect if there were no evidence to come to light in a efficacious manner. The right to be informed of the charges and a public trial protect the accused from prejudice but it also protects the accusers from accusations of prejudice, and that type of accusation would drastically slow down the criminal process. The right to be represented by council is one that the CCM deems to impede their process, stating that an attorney would only instruct their client not to speak, however, if properly given their Miranda rights they may have chosen not to speak regardless. Furthermore, as with the 5th amendment against self-incrimination, if the physical evidence is obtained and the guidelines followed, the accused would not have a chance of appeal, thus the prosecution would have secured a good conviction. Some examples of how the CCM can overcome the constitutional constraints and achieve goals are first, decriminalize actions the public has deemed no longer to be criminal, such as segregation. Second, impose more restraints on informal police fact-finding procedures in the streets. Last, the accused should be more informed of the charges against them and their rights during their first encounter with the police upon arrest. Also, allow council to be more interactive with the accused, that way both sides can come to a legal agreement that benefits the larger community and the fate of the criminal.