Introduction
The criminal justice system follows two models to pursue justice or promote the operation of the process, which are crime control and the due process. Herbert L. Packer, the author of the article “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” offers a detailed analysis of these frameworks, the gulf existing between them, and the best policy claims that can eventually deliver a streamlined and fair criminal process. This paper gives a detailed summary of this article.
Summary
Values Underlying the Models
The adoption of the two models of the criminal process is informed by the desires of the key stakeholders involved, such as defence lawyers, prosecutors, police, and judges. Each of these frameworks offers specific preferences for all these actors (Packer 2). This means that they apply them selectively since they are polarities by nature. The aspects and values underlying such models are used as powerful tools for aiding every form of analysis.
Some Common Ground
Despite the polarity associated with the two outlined models, it is evident that they borrow much from the provisions in the American Constitution and the entire legal system. Firstly, both of them assume that there are distinct yet diverse procedures of identifying criminals and dealing with them as wrongdoers (Packer 2). Secondly, the government’s ability to investigate and eventually apprehend those who engage in crime is usually limited. Thirdly, a minimal assumption exists when it comes to the definition of these terms: day in court, procedural due process, the adversary system, and an opportunity to be heard (Packer 2).
This complexity makes every “alleged criminal an independent entity in the process who may force the operators of the process to demonstrate to a judge that he is guilty of the charges against him” (Packer 3). The rhetoric nature of the judicial process presents an opportunity for claims that tend to be disputed. Additionally, the system permits the appointment of lawyers for all persons accused of criminal acts. The process goes further to allow such suspects to be interrogated. These processes indicate that there exists some common ground between these two models.
Crime Control Values
The Crime Control Model is founded on the premise that the most important role of the criminal justice process is the repression of any form of criminal conduct. Therefore, the absence of an effective or tight control against criminal behavior is what results in the loss of public order (Packer 4). Without proper policies and procedures, law-abiding citizens might eventually become victims of unjustifiable lawsuits and invasions. This gap explains why the ultimate role of the system is to maximize efficiency. This means that suspects need to be screened while ensuring that there are dispositions for every convicted person.
For the model to become effective, stakeholders should strive to maximize the rate of conviction and apprehension using the available resources. The presumption of guilt goes further to support the system to deal with the increasing number of criminal cases (Packer 5). The police are required to screen and allow prosecutors to complete their tasks diligently. According to this model that features the attributes of an assembly line, the fact-finding states become critical for the delivery of justice or for identifying wrongdoers.
Due Process Values
This due process concept looks like an obstacle to the effectiveness of Crime Control Model. Its successive levels or stages present unique impediments to carrying any suspect along the judicial system. This means that the model focuses mainly on the legal or formal structure of the crime control process. It views fact-finding strategies as initiatives aimed at identifying potential errors. The use of the model indicates that a given person would only be found guilty if all determinations are made procedurally by different professionals. The author indicates that the users of this model promote a sense of scepticism about the utility and morality of the introduced criminal sanction (Packer 10).
This means that the criminal justice system appears to present a scenario whereby one source of power might decide to exert more pressure than the other. Through these insights, it is evident that the two models present specific problems that require immediate solutions. One of them is the presentation of appropriate rules that can guide the entire criminal process. The second one is identifying the most appropriate policies that have to be implemented in order to promote fairness, while at the same time ensuring that innocent persons are eventually set free.
Conclusion
The competing nature of the above two models explains why the best criminal process should never be informed by legislative supremacy tendencies. Despite their weaknesses and strengths, the judicial power should pursue evidence-based strategies to provide justice while also promoting superior methods to deter crime. A common ground will also reduce the existing differences and divergent statements that support one model over the other. Consequently, prosecutors, the police, and courts will find a new reason to work together and eventually transform America’s criminal justice system for the better.
Work Cited
Packer, Herbert L. “The Models of the Criminal Process.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 113, no. 1, 1964, pp. 1-12.