Coursework Electronic Submission Cover Sheet

Person Number: 965127

Student Name: Caitlin O’Neill

You should only complete this field if
you are not submitting this work
anonymously.

Module Code: 4017

Module Title: Criminal Justice System

Coursework Title: Explain the ‘crime control’ and ‘due

process’ models of justice. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of the models
of justice?

Name of Tutor: Dr Amy Hughes- Stanley

Due Date: 8th November 2021

Word Count: 1564

Marker (If different from tutor):

Group Submission? No

Group Members:
Please include the names of all group
members, and if you are submitting
anonymously include their six digit
Person Numbers.

IMPORTANT

By clicking on the Submit button when you upload your work, you are confirming that you are aware of the
LJMU policy 'regarding cheating, plagiarism and all other forms of academic impropriety. The coursework
submitted is your own / the group’s work and all sources consulted have been appropriately acknowledged.
You are aware that in case of doubt an investigation will be held.
NB Coursework handed in after the deadline will normally receive a mark of ‘0’ unless the late submission
has formal authorised approval from your tutor.
Please commence typing your assignment on the following page. You may need to amend the font and
other formatting options as per the individual requirements of your lecturer/module leader.

(Please start your coursework here)

Explain the ‘crime control’ and ‘due process’ models of justice. What are the advantages and disadvantages
of these models of justice?

In this essay the writer will be explaining and describing, in a clear and detailed manner, the ‘crime control’
and ‘due process’ models of criminal justice. When explaining the ‘crime control’ and ‘due process’ models
of justice, the discussion will focus on using the writers analytical and reasoning skills to carefully select
evidence to outline both subjects mentioned. This will include drawing information from Packer’s (1968)
models of justice. The writer will then move on to explore the advantages and disadvantages of these models
of justice. The discussion will then conclude which model has more advantages or disadvantages and
provide support and evidence for this decision. The decisions of the Supreme Court for matters of criminal
justice can be majorly understood by both the ‘due process’ and ‘crime control’ models and therefore are
important to look into and understand (Inciardi, 2001, p.13).

Herbert Packer articulates the values supporting two models of the justice process in one of the most
important contributions to systematic thought about the administration of criminal justice. Packer notes the
gulf existing between the ‘due process model’ of criminal administration, with its emphasis on the rights of
the individual, and the ‘crime control model,’ which sees the regulation of criminal conduct as the important
function of the judicial system. Packer goes on to say, ‘these models are not labelled Is and Ought, nor are
they to be taken in that sense’ (Packer, 1968, para. 1). Packer is not saying that these models are how it is
meant to be in reality or should be the ideal. ‘These two models merely afford a convenient way to talk
about the operation of a process,’ (Packer, 1968, para. 2). Packer is merely saying that he is not in favour of
nor against these models, he is merely using them to explain how criminal justice practitioners make their
decisions. Packer describes both the ‘due process’ and ‘crime control’ models as ‘values that are presented
here as an aid to analysis, not as a program for action,’ this allows ‘actors in this development’ such as
lawmakers and judges to pick and choose from both values based on their preferences regarding the criminal
process. Packer describes a person who endorse just the values of just one model, would be viewed as a
‘fanatic,’ (Packer, 1968, para. 5). Packer developed his models in order to illustrate what he saw as the two
conflicting value systems that competed for priority in the operation of the criminal process. They represent
extremes on a spectrum of possible ways of doing criminal justice. The use of these models allows one to
plot the position of current practices at each stage of the criminal process and to highlight the direction of
actual and foreseeable trends (Sanders, Young, Burton, 2010, p.21).

‘Crime control’ is the model by which the repression of criminal conduct is viewed as by far the most
important function to be performed by the criminal process. If there is an absence of repression or a general
disregard for the criminal law would develop, citizens would live in constant fear. In order to maintain social
freedom, the model must achieve a high level of detection and conviction. However, due to crime rates
being high and resources being limited, the model depends for success on speed and on minimising the
opportunities for challenge. Speed can best be achieved by allowing the police to establish the facts through
interrogation. To further guarantee speed, procedures must be uniform and routine so the model represents a
conveyer belt (Sanders, et al., 2010, p.21-22). This model emphasises efficiency and is based on the view
that the most important function of the criminal process is repression of criminal conduct. Advocates of this
model put a premium on speed and finality and cannot understand why obviously guilty people walk free
due to the errors of police or court personnel (Inciardi, 2001, p.14). This model is often not favoured nor has
much support among academic criminologists for a crime control approach, however, it is very well
supported in the popular press, particularly tabloid newspapers which influence the public as this is the bulk
of what they are reading (Ellis and Savage, 2012, p.8).

The ‘Due process’ model lacks confidence in informal pre-trial and fact-finding processes that the ‘crime
control’ process takes on. This model believes many factors may contribute to a mistaken belief in guilt,
resulting in the production of unreliable evidence against the suspect. For example, witnesses to disturbing
events tend to make errors in recollecting details or may be animated by a bias that the police either
encourage or will not seek to discover. Due process therefore believes everyone should partake in formal,
adjunctive, adversary fact-finding processes in which the case against the accused is tested before a public
and impartial court (Sanders, et al., 2010, p.23). This model stresses the possibility of error in stages leading
to trial. It therefore emphasises the need to protect procedural rights even if it prevents the justice system
from operating with maximum efficiency (Inciardi, 2001, p.13).

Both of these models have advantages and disadvantages when it comes to underlying values and how these
are used in the criminal justice system. The ‘crime control’ model has advantages when it comes to use in
the criminal justice system. This model’s main value is to control crime and maintain human freedom as
quickly as possible. Its ‘value system’ maintains that the central role of the criminal process is to repress
crime and the failure to do so ‘leads to the breakdown of public order and thence to the disappearance of an
important condition of human freedom’ (Jones, 2010, p.339) Because of this, the criminal process is
justified in using a certain ‘efficiency’ in how it deals with suspects, arrestees and convicted offenders
(Jones, 2010, p.339 ). ‘Crime control’ will also ensure that the public are protected from future victimisation
by the same offender by ensuring members of the public be notified when the offender is released, and the
offenders are notified that they are monitored so they cannot offend again (Ellis and Savage, 2012, p.12).

However, the ‘crime control’ model also has its disadvantages. The police must not only strive to reduce,
prevent, and respond to crime but they must do so in a constrained fashion. The public requires the police to
enforce law and protect the public but to observe and protect individual rights in the process. However, the
‘crime control’ model can be seen as a form of entrapment as many feel the polices intense interrogation
may lead to bias outcome or false confession and trick an innocent person into committing a crime in order
to secure their prosecution (Travis III and Edwards, 2014, p.184-185).

On the other hand, ‘due process’ model also has its advantages. Vulnerable people, for example, the young,
elderly or mentally ill may all admit to crimes they have not committed as they may not fully understand
what they are being blamed for and their reason for being interrogated if it means getting out of the police
station quicker. Therefore, it is a good thing that the ‘due process’ model has the ‘innocent until proven
guilty’ premise which the United Kingdom have taken on. The onus is on the state to prove guilt rather than
the defendant prove innocence. An approach that would toughen up the response to offenders is welcomed
when it is going to be applied to ‘the other’ however no one wants to be this ‘other’ person. Therefore, many
believe it is better to have a system of fair play, one that treats people equally and gives them a chance. This
is a reason why the ‘due process’ model is better than the ultimate ‘crime control’ model (Ellis and Savage,
2012, p.17).

Like ‘crime control’, ‘due process’ also has its disadvantages. The exclusively rule works to release the
guilty. In so doing, the rule implies that ‘due process’ concerns outweigh ‘crime control’ concerns. The
courts would rather let a guilty criminal go free than allow police to violate constitutional rights. If
exclusionary rule is not working to protect individual rights, the social cost of letting the guilty go free is
unjustified. Another disadvantage is that the requirement of ‘due process’ supports a reactive style of
policing by restricting what police do to detect and arrest potential criminals. This is allowing the public to
be put at risk of future and current offender’s criminal acts (Travis III and Edwards, 2014, p.185).

In conclusion, a mixture of these models is essential for the criminal justice system to work effectively for
the certain cause. However, from the information gathered in this discussion the writer would say that ‘crime
control’ is better for the public’s general safety, even though it may be harsh and does not treat everyone
equally. ‘Crime control’ measures appeal to popular and populist sentiment as it suggests a quick and
effective response to crime. This is preferable to the relatively powerless, law-abiding citizens so they can
exercise their essential right to freedom without the worry of being affected by an offender’s criminal acts
(Ellis and Savage, 2012, p.12).

The writer has covered the ‘crime control’ and ‘due process’ models of justice created by Packer and further
explained each of the models along with their advantages and disadvantages. The writer then concluded the
discussion by making a decision on which model has the most convincing argument.
Reference List:

Ellis T. and Savage S P. (2012) Debates in Criminal Justice: Key Themes and Issues [online] Oxon:
Routledge

Available through: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ljmu/reader.action?docID=957661&ppg=13

[Accessed: 7th November 2021].

Inciardi, J, A. (2001) Criminal Justice, Seventh Edition, New York: Oxford University Press INC. pp. 13

Jones R. (2010) Populist leniency, crime control and due process. Sage Journals [online] pp.339.

Available at:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1362480610371667

[Accessed: 7th November 2021]

Packer H, L. (1968) Two Models of the Criminal Process [online]

Available at:
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hhs.csus.edu%2FHomepages%2
FCJ%2FBikleB%2FPacker%2520-
%2520Two%2520Models%2520of%2520the%2520Criminal%2520Process.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELIN
K

[Accessed: 3rd November 2021]

Sanders A., Young R., Burton M., (2010) Criminal Justice, Fourth Edition, United States: Oxford University
Press INC., New York pp.21-23

Travis III L F., Edwards B D., (2014) Introduction to Criminal Justice, Eighth Edition, USA: Anderson
Publishing pp.184-185.