Description of consensus and conflict model
Legal decisions are guided by two key models. These incorporate the consensus model that derives its foundation on societal views and the conflict model, which relies on experts to determine concepts and procedures (Newton & Van Deth, 2005). The origin of the two models typifies the roots of criminal law. Consensus model assumes a direct correlation with the theory of Social contract as per the formulations of John Locke. Concurrently, the conflict model is developed along the Marxist theory which divides the world into dissimilar classes. The model assigns influential persons the decision-making role.
An example on the application of the consensus model is the recent referendum in Southern Sudan. This accorded the citizens the responsibility of making decisions on the laws that would govern them. Consequently, it was their privilege to settle on the direction to pursue. The conflict model is commonly applied in modern legal systems since judges make the decision, which they deem correct (Schmalleger, 2003). Legal judgments such as the death punishment exercised on Iraqi’s deceased president, Sadam Hussein, exemplify the conflict model.
Consensus Model
Social implications
The consensus model has more constructive effects in the society, upon comparison to negative implications. The model enhances harmony since decisions are made according to societal demands (Newton & Van Deth, 2005). However, the model may be ineffective in criminal justice because it takes long periods to come up with decisions that represent the majority.
Legal and political implications
Legal implications of the consensus model are evident in elevated levels of (Newton & Van Deth, 2005). Concurrently, the model enhances political stability by fair allotment of powers. Therefore, it should be the preferred model in criminal justice.
Conflict model
Social implications
A common social implication is evident in the rejection of the model since it poses dictatorial tendencies. The model employs powerful people to make decisions on behalf of the society thus failing to represent opposing views (Schmalleger, 2003). In criminal justice, the society may possess evidence which contradicts decision makers; however, they may be convinced otherwise due to the available facts. Consequently, the judgment process fails to reflect the societal wishes (Newton & Van Deth, 2005).
Legal implication
Conflict model has grave legal implications due to dictatorial tendencies. Although it is widely used in industrialized and developing world, it fails to apply absolute fairness in all situations. The judges are well trained but fail to access all relevant information thus making judgment unfair (Schmalleger, 2003). However, it is helpful because it reduces the duration needed to come up with a decision.
Political implication
Due to the increasing quest for political power, the conflict model is also unfavorable in promoting political fairness. This is because the model divides the society into classes; furthermore, most politicians belong to the top brass (Schmalleger, 2003). It is noteworthy that they take advantage of such a situation by deceiving the society. This is partly attributed to the leniency of the legal system towards authoritative politicians. The conflict model assumes increased levels of evenness amongst human beings; however, dynamism in human nature proves that different situations necessitate diverse solutions. Consequently, it is not easy to apply the conflict model fully; however, it can act as a guideline for the consensus model in matters pertaining to criminal justice (Newton & Van Deth, 2005).
References
Newton, K. & Van Deth, J. (2005). Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schmalleger, F. (2003). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.