Crime Control Model
Due Process Model, Public Health Model
Crime control model tries to deter crime by all means.
Crime control model is less protective of individual rights. Crime control model is in
favour of the idea that individual rights must be put aside for the purpose of maintaining
public safety. Crime control model assumes that sometimes one has to give up ones rights
for the benefit of society as a whole.
Due Process vs. Crime
Two crime control models: the due process model and the crime control model have been
debated for a long time.
Due process model gives credence
to the principle that an individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. When people are charged with a crime
they are required to have their rights protected by the criminal justice system under the
due process model.
Crime control model for law enforcement is based on the assumption of absolute reliability
of police fact-finding and treats arrestees as if they are already found guilty.
There have been many papers
comparing and contrasting the role that the due process and crime control models have on
shaping criminal procedure policy.
There are many differences between the due process model and the crime control model:
In the due process model people that are arrested are
perceived to be innocent until proven in a court of law. The crime control model believes
that the people that are arrested are guilty and need to be punished by the government.
Due process model believes that
policing within the criminal justice system is essential to maintaining justice within
society. Crime control model believes that the arresting of people in the criminal justice
system has a negative effect and slows down the process of the criminal justice system.
Law enforcement agencies generally prefer the crime control model. They treat arrested as
if they were already guilty and emphasize on arrest, prosecution and conviction of those
who have broken the law.
THE CRIME CONTROLS AND DUE
By Brandon A. Perron, Board Certified Criminal Defense Investigator
The American justice systems need for an effective strategy to combat crime has been
debated for years. In fact, close examination reveals that the core of the controversy and
conflicting philosophies are fundamentally liberal and conservative and thus political in
nature. Consider the goals of the American Criminal Justice system for a moment. The
Primarily the goals can be categorized into two very distinct missions: (1) the need to
enforce the law and maintain social order, and (2) the need to protect people from
injustice. However, the two goals are generally considered to be in conflict with each
other. The first goal is referred to as the crime control model and was developed by
Herbert Packer and presented to the academic world in his analysis of the criminal justice
system in the 1960s.
We have addressed both the crime control model and the due process model and have found
significant strengths and weaknesses inherent to both of them. Liberal proponents of the
due process model believe that the crime control model is too harsh and pursues the
ideology of a police state. The arguments of the conservative supporters of the crime
control model complain that the due process model protects the guilty at the expense of
innocent law abiding citizens.
Due Process for the Global
Crime Age: A Proposal
L. Song Richardson, DePaul University College of Law
Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2008
Abstract: This article argues that the adjudication of transnational criminal cases in the
United States raises troubling questions about the government's commitment to principled
criminal process standards. In his seminal work on the domestic criminal process, Herbert
Packer described two models of criminal procedure: the crime control model and the due
process model. The crime control model posits that the most important function of the
criminal justice system is to suppress crime. The due process model focuses on the
fallibility of the process. Balancing the norms of the two models is challenging, but
necessary. No such balancing exists in the global crime era. Instead, crime control norms
usurp due process values as a result of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties which regularize
foreign evidence gathering for prosecutors while explicitly preventing defendants from
using them. This article breaks new ground by constructing a framework that will both
protect due process norms and simultaneously preserve effective crime control.
In 1968, Professor Herbert Packer
published The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Prof. Packer discusses the attributes of
the two conflicting models of a criminal justice system. The first model is the Crime
Control Model, the purpose of which is to reduce the number of criminals on the