The United States has one of the most complex and fascinating criminal justice systems in the world. The reason that the United States has such a unique criminal justice system, is that the founding fathers based their principles from superior legal frameworks around the world. For example, the founding fathers were known for looking to English, French, and other European Legal Frameworks, (The United States Constitution). Additionally, the founding fathers thought to their education of Roman Law and the laws of Ancient Greece, (The United States Constitution). For this reason, the United States has a unique array of principles within its criminal justice system that make the United States truly unique in the world due to the focus on ensuring justice. The reason that the founding fathers were so focused on the ideals of justice were that they were traumatized from the treatment that existed in England at the time with the absolute power of the monarchy. This caused them to think long and hard how to keep a central government out of the courts as much as possible to ensure that there was an impartial body deciding legal matters, (“Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers,” 2016).
This is precisely why the United States legal framework is comprised of the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative, (“Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers,” 2016).
This system is designed to be a “checks and balances” framework that allows each branch to essentially keep the other branch in a balance of power, (“Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers,” 2016). This successful framework is particularly relevant in the Judicial aspect of the United States due to the criminal justice systems focus on the notion of due process and criminal control. This paper will provide an in depth discussion of what due process and criminal control are and compare and contrast how they can be differentiated. Additionally, this paper will discuss which one of these theories implicates the criminal justice system within the United States.
The underlying values in crime control model focuses on the efficiency of the system, with heavy reliance on informal administrative fact finding to repress criminal behavior (Parker, 1964: 9-13). The necessity to repress criminal activities is to prevent the breakdown of social order – a pre-requisite condition for human freedom and the liberty to function as a society. In order to maintain social order, the system is based on efficiency. Efficiency, as defined by Parker (1964:10), refers to the capability of the system to identify, apprehend, convict, as well as to dispose of large amount of criminal offenders. The high percentage of apprehension and conviction is required to display stringent legal control over the criminals, preventing unwanted disregard of the law and rise in victimization rate of law abiding citizens. The criminal justice process in crime control model predominantly lies in the administrative fact finding conducted by the police, investigating judge and prosecutors, established under informal settings and extrajudicial administration. This speeds up the criminal justice process with minimal intervention from formal adjudicative proceedings, resulting in minimal case dismissal and attain finality of case proceeding that ensure due justice is served. To apprehend and process large number of criminals, the efficiency in this system is enhanced by the assumption of guilt that displays the operational confidence towards the factual evidence obtained in the institutions involved in the investigative process. The assumption of guilt allows early determination through the probability of innocence or guilt of an individual. Upon acquiring sufficient factual evidence that points towards a potential guilty charge, subsequent actions are directed towards that individual in view of probable guilt. In another words, the assumption of guilt predicts the process and outcome of an individual, even before the suspect becomes a defendant. This in turn, allows higher rate of apprehension and conviction, dealt with using limited resources.
On the other hand, due process model emphasizes on human rights, advocates presumption of innocence and is devised to assert limits upon state power (Parker, 1964: 13-23). By placing emphasis upon human rights, limitations are enacted upon state’s intervention into individual’s lives, the method of treatment, apprehension and conviction of the suspect. In this manner, suspects are prevented against illegal detention, punitive punishment and avoid being subjected to coercive state power. The due process model also favors formal and adjudicative criminal justice process. It declines the full acceptance of informal fact finding conducted by state authorities due to the potential of emotions perpetuating the observation of disturbing events, resulting in erroneous conclusions. Through adopting the presumption of innocence in this model, it further complements the emphasis on human rights and formal adjudicative criminal justice proceeding. Presumption of innocence put the accent on legally competent authority to declare guilty of an individual solely proven on the basis of legal guilt founded through various stringent court proceeding. By leaving the suspect’s guilt as an open question, it provides a direction for authorities to search for reliable factual evidence to tender in court, preventing false accusation and conviction of an innocent. Although it places strong emphasis on reliability of declared legal factual evidence, its ultimate aim is not toward finality. Rather, it values the protection of innocence more than the conviction of guilty. As such, it compromises the efficiency of the criminal justice system, which in turn, maintain the pressure against penalizing state’s power, limiting state authority in dealing with criminal sanction.
The crime control model is related to effective and efficient administration of justice through quick procedures that involve the direct handling of cases from start to finish, (“The Crime Control Model,” 2016). The essence of the crime control model revolves around the theory that if the police have in fact respected a person’s rights throughout the arrest process of investigation, then there is a high probability that the individual is in fact guilty of something, (Perron, B., 2016). In cases that are straightforward such as these, it is not uncommon to see that an agreement is reached between the district attorney and the defense. This agreement is called a plea bargain and this transpires when the arrested person (the defendant), agrees to admit to their guilt in exchange for avoiding a trial, which normally increases the time period of their sentence a great deal, (Schmalleger, F., pg. 28). What the plea bargain contributes to the theory of criminal control is that it effectively assists both parties in the manner that the defendant is in fact admitting their guilt; however, the state is granting them credence for not going through the process of a lengthy trail. Essentially, this is protecting the state’s interests in that they do not have to invest in a trial that the defendant will be convicted. What is the trigger for a plea bargain to be reached is that there as to be an underlying assumption that the defendant is guilty of at least one of the charges against them.
An important aspect of plea bargains that is crucial to understand in relation to the crime control model is that they promote efficiency for the state. If one were to contemplate the situation in reverse without the existence of plea bargains, the state would have a major burden upon them to try each and every type of defendant. A species of plea bargains also exists to give prospective defendants that are guilty of lesser charges to have their sentences reduced or charges dropped if they help the district attorney get a “bigger fish.” These agreements are commonplace if they are able to serve the greater public good. A great example of this theory put into practice is that if the state was looking for a criminal that had committed several serious murder crimes, then the state may consider negotiating some form of plea agreement with the individual that was not the actual serial killer in exchange for their testimony that would help catch the serial killer and formally charge them. These agreements happen on a daily basis to both promote efficiency in the courts and to assist those looking to catch the bigger criminal.
Contrarily, the due process model focuses less on the speed of resolving the case, but the step by step analysis of the individual due process rights, (“The Due Process Model,” 2016). When considering the due process model, it is important to think of the model as looking into the defendant’s rights from the beginning of the arrest process. One of the key elements of the due process theories is whether the police in fact had “probable cause” to make an arrest, (“ACLU Press Release,” 2001). “Probable cause” is defined as the existence of a sufficient reason based on known facts to have the belief that a crime has in fact been committed by an individual or that property that is in possession of by an individual is connected to a crime, (“ACLU Press Release,” 2001). “Probable cause” is required in order to permit a law enforcement officer to make a lawful arrest, (“ACLU Press Release,” 2001). “Probable cause” is one of the most difficult debates when considering the arrest process within the United States because there is a large distinct line between “probable cause” and having a racial profiling situation or a preconceived notion that cannot be proved with substantial evidence to demonstrate “probable cause.” The standard that is typically applied when trying to assess whether the police in fact had “probable cause” is pertaining to whether they had beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was somehow involved in the crime they were looking to make an arrest for.
The other aspect of the due process model that becomes quite complicated is how the police found their evidence and whether it was in fact legal. The reason for this is that the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures that do not have a proper warrant, (United States Constitution). What this protection basically does is to allow the prospective individual to not have the government invading their privacy at any given moment. This is very important within the United States because the founding fathers were desiring to protect Americans from the unreasonable searches and seizures that transpired in England that clearly violated their rights. By adding the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the founding fathers were essentially adding a critical aspect of the due process framework to United States law, (Peak, K., pg. 14).
Police officers have to be very careful to protect any prospective defendant’s due process rights through the search and seizure of evidence. One will hear many people say that a case was thrown out on the grounds of a technicality. This is a very common incident because perhaps a piece of the evidence was obtained in an illegal manner. If the police do not go through the process of getting a judge to give them a proper search warrant, for example, they will have many issues relating to the evidence that they present at court. What is important to remember about this for police officers is that they could potentially lose a case for the lawyers if they cannot use the primary evidence they obtained to convict the defendant. Thus, it is essential for police officers to follow this process religiously in order to ensure that the evidence can be entered into the trial against the defendant. Failing to do this can cost the district attorney the entire case against their prospective defendant.
Narrowing in on the notion of due process, there has to be an assessment made of the timeline and evolution of the case. The United States was founded on the premise that a suspect was innocent until proven guilty. The reason for this is that the founding fathers wanted United States citizens to have the right to be presumed innocent and that the state had the burden of proving their guilt. In England, this practice did not exist historically because one of guilty if the monarch thought so and there was usually a rigged trial that proved that person’s guilt falsely in order to get the conviction that the monarch wanted. The founding fathers really wanted to preserve the individuals proper right to a trial and fair evidence, which is precisely why we see so many amendments to the United States constitution that deal with trial procedures and protect against unwarranted searches and seizure of property without a proper search warrant.
When utilizing the due process framework, there is an investigation of the seizure of evidence, the actual arrest, and the evidence introduced at trial in order to determine whether the individual was properly given their due process rights. One of the fundamental aspects of due process rights is the notion that an individual was arrested with sufficient probable cause, but also another aspect of due process that is imperative is that the person was given a fair trial. Having a fair trial in a jurisdiction that is essentially impartial is one of the aspects of due process that is protected by the amendments of the United States constitution. It is required for a defendant to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Definitions of what “beyond a reasonable doubt” have varied over the years and caused a great deal of controversy because individuals have not always known where to draw the line.
When comparing and contrasting the due process model and crime control model, it is important to ascertain that the fundamental difference between the two is that the crime process model is more of a quick evaluation of whether the individual was properly convicted and the due process model is the investigation of the entire process from arrest to trial. The crime control model is typically more effective in utilizing when a person is found to be guilty in at least one of the key fundamental aspects of the crime. That being said, the crime control has to ensure that there was probable cause for the person to be properly arrested and charge regardless of whether they meet the threshold to be guilty of one of the elements of the crime. In either model, the court has the requirement of showing that the individual was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when they are being convicted in order to return a verdict of guilty. Thus, the prosecutor is going to try to prove this critical aspect against a defendant in order to convince a jury that the defendant is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both the crime control model and the due process model are similar in the sense that they are protecting the accused rights to meet a certain level of guilt. Their frameworks, although different, were designed to protect the accused from problems that they suffered historically with false convictions. Now that we live in this modern era of technology, it is becoming easier and easier to prove guilt with the proper modern evidence. Thus, these models have become easier to apply to the seizure of evidence and trials because there is simply more accuracy overall in the criminal justice process and we see less convictions of innocents than ever before.
In order to relate the crime control model to a cultural context, it is important to understand that the crime control model is typically related to how the government reacts to the crime and how they administer justice, (Trevaskes, 2004 cited in Sung, 2006: 312). The choice of how the respective regime administers justice is a reflection on the type of regime that they chose to be, (Trevaskes, 2004 cited in Sung, 2006: 312). An example of this can be see with authoritarian regimes being known for their arbitrariness, secrecy, and brutality, (Trevaskes, 2004 cited in Sung, 2006: 312). How each prospective regime conducts their model depicts how they organize their balance of power relating to the police, courts, prisons, and overall system of criminal justice.
Bibliography
ACLU Press Release. (2001). ACLU Freedom Network. [Online]. [Accessed 16th April 2016].
Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers. (2016). U.S. Constitution Online. [Online]. [Accessed 16th April 2016].
Peak, K. (2001) Justice Administration. Third Edition. Prentice Hall. Page 14.
Perron, B. (2016). The Crime Controls and Due Process Models. The Criminal Defense Investigation Training Council. [Online]. [Accessed 16th April 2016].
Schmalleger, F. “Criminal Justice Today.” Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall. 199. Print. Page 28.
The Crime Control Model. (2016). Penn State. [Online]. [Accessed 16th April 2016].
The Due Process Model. (2016). Penn State. Online]. [Accessed 16th April 2016].
The United States Constitution.
