Criminal Law
The prosecutorial style is more reflective of the Due Process Model of criminal justice because this approach adheres to the concept that the search for truth is more important than speed and efficiency in the resolution of cases (May, Minor, Ruddell and Matthews, 2007). On the other hand, Crime Control Model is based on the theory that the repression of crime is one of the crucial roles of the government where emphasis is given on the rapid arrest, screening, charges, acquittal, conviction, sentence served and the limitation on the process of appeal to eradicate the criminals in society (Lipmann, 2010). The Crime Control Model is characterized by the purpose, informal procedures and the determination of guilt to prevent crimes and provide punishment for the offenses made in the society.
However, the Due Process model is considered the cornerstone of the criminal justice system since the focus is on the rights of the offenders or defendants during trials and multi-level appeals and to prevent possible prejudices while the case is being heard (Lipmann, 2010). Some of the criminal justice procedure covered under this approach shall include faulty memory of a witness, inaccurate identification during police line-ups, forced confessions and inaccurate laboratory results. This model adheres to the principle of fairness and equality of the defendants in order to ensure procedural protection is being observed. The main purpose is to prevent and punish crime with the application of detailed process for the protection of individual rights by following the criminal justice system. It goes by the saying: “It is better for 10 guilty men to go free rather than to punish an innocent man” (May et al., 2008).
Compared to the Crime Control Model, speed and efficiency of the legal process is regarded as the primary consideration. The prosecutor and police exert joint efforts to determine the guilt and innocence of the accused where they should not be restricted by mere technicalities (Lipmann, 2010).
However, both models require a four-prong criterion while going through the entire legal process which begins with arrest and promulgation of a judgment by the court. First is efficiency. There should be a brief interval of time between the arrest, indictment, trial and conviction. According to Lipmann (2010), the accused is entitled to his right to a speedy trial which is a guaranteed under the Constitution. The second consideration is that the accuracy of the results gathered has given the prosecutor the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses for the accused and complainant. The third consideration is the presence of equality and fairness in carrying out the legal process. The suspect or the accused should be protected against abuse, violence, corruption and possibility of human error (Lipmann, 2010). The last consideration is equality. All persons who are accused should be treated the same or in equal footing regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or financial standing.
Before the prosecutor should determine whether probable cause exists, he or she should see to it that the police interrogation and confession by the accused is in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment by complying with the due process clause; the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment; and the right against self-incrimination in accordance with the Fifth Amendment (Samaha, 2011). The basic concept of due process approach means that confessions should be voluntary on the part of the person charged and without force and duress employed by the police and the prosecutor (Samaha, 2011). The due process model focuses on the importance of providing protection for the accused or the suspects against potential abuse of power exerted by the police, prosecutors and judges. The legal processes are considered as the best safeguard against abuse, maltreatment, human error, corruption and false conviction. The police and criminal justice personnel are mandated to follow strictly the detailed process and sacrifice speed to protect the rights of the accused. The determination of guilt and innocence shall be determined by the court and are subject to lengthy appeals to prevent inaccurate results or convictions (Lipmann, 2010).
References
Lipmann, M. (2010). Criminal Procedure. California: USA: SAGE.
May, D.C., Minor, K.I., Ruddell, R. and Matthews, B.A. (2008). Corrections and the Criminal
Justice System. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Procedure. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
