Two models of the criminal process - Essay Example

Is it possible to effectively control crime in our society while at the same time protecting the individual rights of the people from infringement bythe government The answer lies on the role each differently played by due process and crime control models in shaping criminal procedure policy. While crime control models emphasizes protection and the due process stresses on right to trial and to appeal when necessary, both concepts are very different having impact the way our judicial system is run.

In the comparison of due process and crime control models, it should be kept in mind that "proponents of both models embrace constitutional values." (H.Packer, Criminal Procedure, p. 12) The ways that the two systems intersect together are few but they do seem to work collaboratively within the adversarial system of justice.This statement is supported by the fact that the Constitution and the law prohibit authorities like the police and the public prosecutors from arresting or otherwise depriving a person's liberty unless there is probable cause to believe that such individual has committed crime and that such individual is probably guilty thereof.

This does not authorize the prosecution of immoral acts, only illegal acts for criminal procedure is not based upon false imprisonment or individual harassment. It is axiomatic that there are limits within the system that must be adhered to.For instance, the government has limits as to its powers and abilities when investigating a crime or a person as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. (Criminal Procedure, p. 13) The government cannot go beyond the powers imposed upon them by the Constitution which vests upon individuals a right to a reasonable amount of privacy.

The "alleged criminal" has in his favour a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (Criminal Procedure). This essentially means that you cannot deprive an individual his liberty without giving the alleged criminal a "day in court" or what is commonly known as due process.The crime control model states that "the repression of the criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal process." (Criminal Procedure, p. 13) Of course this goes back to balancing the protection of privacy while trying to maintain "public safety" (Criminal Procedure, p. 13) The crime control model could perhaps be seen negatively due to the fact that it assumes the "alleged criminal" is guilty even before he is given a day in court.

This model supports those actions of the police and prosecutors to the fullest extent. The analogy used to describe what the crime control model looks like is a "conveyor belt." (Criminal Procedure. P, 13) It moves through the system with the forethought that everyone is guilty until proven otherwise. This model also limits the amount of plea-bargaining and appeals. The demand for "finality is high in the crime control model." (Criminal Procedure, p. 13) The most important concern of the crime control model is that society must be made safer and criminals must go to jail.

If an innocent person goes to jail, it is the price we pay for an orderly, safe society. Most of the people charged with crimes are probably guilty and should go to jail is the mentality of this model and that courts have been overly concerned with protecting Constitutional rights, and the result has been that guilty persons have gone free. The due process model, on the other hand, is said to resemble an "obstacle course" by the crime control model. (Criminal Procedure, P. 13) In the due process model, the protection of individual liberties is extremely important because when one person's rights are violated all of society's rights are at stake.

It is better that a guilty person occasionally remains free from going to jail than for one innocent individual or individual rights to be eroded. The guarantees of the Bill of Rights must be strictly followed from the point of initial contact with law enforcement authorities through the point of imprisonment if that is the outcome. Under the due process model, society must be willing to sacrifice efficiency in order to protect rights. The values within the due process model are based upon repression of crime as well as not assuming the police are not always correct in their investigation.

(Criminal Procedure, P. 14) This system is far more realistic in the fact that it leaves room for error. It does not automatically assume that the alleged criminal is guilty before the case filed. The need for "finality is very low within the due process model." This means that there is room for appeals as it is in fact encouraged. This system does not want to risk prosecuting an innocent person; it "demands the prevention and elimination of mistakes to the extent possible." The due process model is said to be wary of those who wields power and are merely looking to convict.

The difference between the two models in this sense is that the crime control model is based upon "factual guilt" and the due process model is based upon "legal guilt." (Criminal Procedure, p. 14). The due process model is also based upon "equal treatment of the defendant" because it is believed that errors are the cause for an invalid conviction. While the crime control model strongly contradicts this view, it sometimes tends to violate individual rights.The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.." If the police violate a person's rights under the Fourth Amendment, there are various means that could be used to deal with the situation.

Some of the alternatives utilized in different countries to deal with the illegal search/seizure problem are discussed below. The law enforcement officer who made the constitutional error could be disciplined (demoted, fired, fined) by the police administration, but the evidence could be admitted during a trial. Individuals who believed they were victims of illegal searches/seizures could sue the police officers involved in a civil suit. A civilian review board could hold hearings to investigate the supposedly illegal search/seizure action and recommend a penalty if they conclude that an illegal action did in fact take place.

The illegally seized evidence could be made inadmissible in a court of law (Exclusionary Rule). In 1914 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Weeks v. United States that in the federal courts evidence secured illegally could not be used in prosecution efforts. In 1949 the Supreme Court allowed the use of illegally seized evidence by the prosecutor in a state court criminal trial in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. Justice Frankfurter, writing for the majority, stated, ". that in a prosecution in a state court for a state offense the 14th Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.

" In 1961 the Supreme Court reversed the Wolf decision and ruled by a 5-4 vote in Mapp v. Ohio that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in a state court. In effect the Supreme Court applied its 1914 Weeks decision creating the Exclusionary Rule to the states. The United States became the only country in the world to have such a strict rule regarding evidence. The Exclusionary Rule of criminal procedure is not found in the U.S. Constitution. It was created by the Supreme Court in order to prevent police officers from breaking the law.

The Supreme Court eventually broadened its application to cover the rights included in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. People critical of the Exclusionary Rule claimed that the Supreme Court had made it too easy for criminals to escape being sent to prison. Some criminals who had quite obviously committed crimes were released by appeals courts because the police had made mistakes while conducting searches, seizing evidence, or conducting the criminal investigative procedure. As different individuals were appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970's and 1980'the use of the exclusionary rule has been narrowed.

Perhaps in reaction to increasing numbers of crimes involving violence and /or illegal drug use and trafficking, the Supreme Court has created the good faith exception. In U.S. v. Leon (1984) Justice Bryron White wrote the 6-3 majority opinion. He stated that if the police believe they have a valid search warrant when they conduct a search only to find out after the search that the warrant was flawed, they acted in good faith and the search was legal. White stated in Leon that the Exclusionary Rule was "designed to deter police misconduct rather than punish the errors of judges.

" Justice William Brennan strongly disagreed with Justice.It is my opinion that the due process model is far more realistic and unbiased than the crime control model. The due process model is based upon what is important to this country and its people. It follows the basic ideals of the Declaration of Independence of which the crime control model is not. The latter seems like a method that may have started out with good intentions but somehow fouled up in its implementation. The crime control model convicts before an individual proves his innocence heavily relying upon the presumed righteousness of the authorities, the police and public prosecutors.

Prevention is valued more than civil rights and individual freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, " We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (U. S. History 1865-1945, Appendix -12) This is the credo that serves us best, the one that we must use when serving justice among our fellow man or woman.

ReferencesAppendix 13, Declaration of Independence. U.S. History 1865-1945. (2002). Texas: Leyh Publishing LLC. Zalman, M. (2002). Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society (Rev. ed.). Pearson Education: Prentice Hall.