The United States Criminal Justice System is basically hinged on two competitors: the Crime Control model and the Due Process model. These will forever remain conflicting philosophies and priorities in the administering of justice. In this view, therefore, the crime control model advocates that the most effective way through which crime can be significantly minimized is by establishing that people who are identified to have committed a crime are quick to be punished. The due process model espouses the need of the accused party to ensure fairness as well as self-preservation of the judicial system. These two models of operation each have their merits and demerits; the debate between these two approaches helps to describe the evolution our criminal justice system has taken. This study focuses on discussing the positives and negatives of the Crime Control Model and Due Process Model.
The control model proponents argue that the view should be to stop and punish criminal acts hurriedly and rigidly. They argue that the first public interest is in safety rather than running judicial processes that are necessarily drugged and too long to allow clear and quick identifications, arrests, prosecutions, and souls convicted of crimes against the law. It assumes that until proven guilty, the accused remains to be innocent. It adopts the conceit that if a person has been arrested, then the person must definitely be guilty. This view by hand, therefore, gives a great margin to law enforcers and prosecutors to investigate, arrest weak evidence, and charge with a reduced number of procedural hurdles (Beckett & Western,2020). The model proponents argue that the wide latitude helps officials quickly remove suspects from the street. This has in mind that the model clearly believes that the arrest and conviction of perpetrators are more critical than extending protection that would allow factually guilty personalities to be let free on legal technicalities. Hence, public order and safety shall prevail over individual rights.
The main benefit of the crime control model is the claimed deterrent effect, which shields law-abiding citizens from criminal encroachment through the embodiment of the unacceptability of illegal doings. The proponents claim that the relatively efficient and swift course of identifying, holding, and punishing lawbreakers projects a clear message that in case of criminal comportment, one would cause cinch and severe outcomes. It is generally hoped that the belief that they stand imminent arrest and sanction will discourage wrongdoers from wrongdoings. It essentially sets up an environment where wrongdoing is cut short by getting delinquents out of society as soon as possible. It also prevents backlogs and delays in the judicial system by taking cases out of the system. It is action in the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. This crime control model would have ensured that dangerous persons do not hang around for years, even before they are tried in court and punished. Thus, it focuses on the fact that certainly of action means criminality is not tolerated.
However, though aimed at enhancing public safety, critics note that the crime control model does so at a serious cost to the enjoyment of civil liberties and due process. By this, presupposing guilt and equipping law enforcers with wide powers trumps the rights of the accused by efficient prosecution. For easy shortcutting, overzealous or ruined authorities then put the innocent at serious risks of wrongful conviction and loss of liberty. On the contrary, such narrowly crafted guidelines carry the overbroad problem that, without indispensable checks, routine procedural errors and unconstitutional investigative techniques start to become the norm in the name of expediency here, a problem of immediate legitimacy. On the other hand, state overreach in the violation of privacy rights, whether through overly reaching surveillance or exclusive coercive interrogation facilitated through the relaxation of safeguards, gives rise to a problem of immediate legitimacy. History is riddled with tried and boundless escapades by expansive powers to abuse governments in irrelevance, always erring on the side of the continuous targeting of perceived threats, whether real or imaginary, since time immemorial. There must be very clear judicial protections spelled out to avoid injustice such as miscarriages. Critics of the crime control model say that the basis of order over process undermines the sanctity of the rights that the legal system is supposed to protect.
The due process model sharply contrasts the crime control view in that it places the highest regulation on protecting the accused’s rights over expediency in prosecutions and sentencing. Proponents argue that while public safety is necessary, so is the judiciary process, which is observant of strict rules and procedures for such abuses as the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals to be avoided. The scheme of this provision demands that the accused be conferred with strict procedural safeguards, evidentiary rules, and constitutional civil liberties. Innocence presumes that invaluable right that argues for no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. Advocates say this high legal bar may allow some factually guilty to slip through the system without conviction. However, it is a necessary cost in maintaining judicial integrity and preventing the ruthless hand of the state against its citizens. However, there are undeniably quite strong shields against repressive systems where order is valued above freedom. The due process model values fairness over finality.
The core tenet of the due process model defends the credibility and right of legitimacy of the judicial system. It is the ability “to zealously guard the rights of accused” and assure due procedural protections that require observance of such principles of basic fair play and equitableness before the law. More so, this brings in trust in the overall system of laws and administration of justice, where citizens take the view of the process as bureaucratic. This is the notion that identifies or positions people with impartiality. Further, there is a small quantity of balance that the evidence should bring out, inclining on the standard and procedural hurdles in the protection of the innocent from life-altering wrongful convictions under the due process model (NeJaime & Siegel,2021). Some robust mechanisms were in place to ensure that punishments fit culpability for established offenses, as opposed to the charges that may have accrued out of hastily or casually conducted prosecutions. The chief benefit of due process is that it rests on the frailty of judicial integrity and the fealty to jurisprudential ideals like fairness and proportionality.
The due process model, therefore, aims at safeguarding some of the crucial civil liberties, even if it involves short-circuiting the whole criminal justice system or having dangerous offenders go scot-free. Procedural and evidence requirements, when they become too strict, are argued to overburden the system. The system needs to be more efficient in prosecution cases where the accused are genuinely guilty (Hollander-Blumoff,2023). Willing to go to great lengths to protect a suspect or defendant, those elaborate protections can allow appeal after appeal, motion after motion, some citing obscure legal doctrines, and retrial after retrial to go on for years. Through it all, obviously guilty can walk free through the process only to finally prove their guilt, often with sentences looking woefully inadequate after all the expired time. The deterrence can further be realized so that high scrutiny of trial investigation and procedures is mandated for verbatim due process, with a full realization that this puts substantial financial and staffing strains on already overburdened law enforcement and court facilities. Critics claim such meticulous evidence collection and defense resources and extensive appeals absorb rather large resource allotments, taking focus away from other critical services and enforcement priorities. However, in their views, they believe that the due process model develops the wrong system, which is bound to rights and fails to keep citizens unrestrained from clear criminal threats. Opponents argue that those serving in the administration of justice and society as a whole would be better off if they do not have to work with a system that is too unwieldy and, in fact, allows clear culprits to be identified, arrested and punished. The extreme procedural examination, something demanded by itself on some level along with due process, ostensibly protected by good intentions, is, in fact, an over-idealistic over-correction that puts the brakes on practical fighting crime, according to critics.
In conclusion, the crime control and due process models both diametrically set up a major head-on conflict in terms of philosophical orientation toward the goal of the criminal justice system. The other side would paint a pierce argument that public order and safety can only be guaranteed through striking and vigorous action against the supposed criminals, as is the case under the crime control model. With this in mind, the main premise of the supporters maintains that the prevention and punishment of criminal acts decisively discourage more general lawlessness and embrace the making of an environment within which citizens might otherwise live in safety. Critics maintain that just brutishness and an unfettered approach to solving nothing in the process end up attacking individual liberties and due process rights in overzealous quests for efficient prosecutions. Conversely, the due process model advances the need to protect the accused and includes strict procedural and evidentiary protections. The due process model aims to maintain judicial integrity, fairness, and great miscarriages of justice, including wrong convictions when, factually, people might be allowed to go scot-free or receive lighter punishment when practical. Proponents see it as the main complaint since keeping civil rights and sustaining faith is all about dispassionate enforcement of laws. Critics see the due process model as an unrealistic and unwieldy over-correction model of the system. It obstructs one at every turn for the successful prosecution of blatantly guilty criminals who are a danger to society. This inherent clash between a philosophy of order and finality versus fairness and individual liberty has, over time, permanently led the contours of American judicial theories, policy, and practice development. As new issues and controversies loom in the forefront, the pendulum is tensely drawn across, highlighting crime control values versus due process.
References
Beckett, K., & Western, B. (2020). Crime control, American style: from social welfare to social control. In Crime, Inequality and the State (pp. 165-180). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003060581-12/crime-control-american-style-katherine-beckett-bruce-western
Hollander-Blumoff, R. (2023). The Procedural Justice of Personal Jurisdiction. Ariz. L. Rev., 65, 643. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/arz65§ion=23
NeJaime, D., & Siegel, R. (2021). Answering the Lochner Objection: Substantive Due Process and the Role of Courts in a Democracy. NYUL Rev., 96, 1902. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/nylr96§ion=50
write