Criminal procedure policy and reform

¶ … Due Process and Crime Control Models

One simply cannot look at contemporary criminal procedure policy without seeing clearly the undeniable role that due process and crime control models has had and been able to influence. For instance the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution have had an undeniable influence on the criminal justice system, mostly via the form of ground-breaking cases which have undeniably been able to shape the way that the system functions. Together the values which act as a foundation for the due process of law and the model of crime control offer benefits to society, individuals inside and outside of the system, and the greater criminal justice system as a whole. In America, the dynamics of the due process of law zero in on the necessity of protecting legal and illegal individuals who function within the system and in society as a whole. "The Due process of law focuses on protecting all legal and illegal individuals' by guaranteeing a level of Constitutional Rights and liberties here in the United States. The Due process of law does this by reducing the level of discretional powers individual law enforcement Officers have, limiting laws, and by demanding that each professional abide by and follow the formal process and procedures of the law when establishing a criminal case" (Limbaugh, 2010). However, this still needs to be balanced against a primary concern of protecting society by engaging in a successful means of law enforcement via the employment of a range of strategies for the prosecution of criminals for the greater benefit of the general population (Limbaugh, 2010).

Due process is still a dynamic which gives a certain amount of agency to law enforcement officials, giving them the freedom to use their personal beliefs and personal prejudices/opinions. Even so, the due process model as used in America believes that all individuals are innocent until guilty; furthermore, the crime control model tries to push the individual through the system like a conveyor belt in the supermarket, freeing up court congestion, and thus allowing the courts to be able to process and try more cases (Limbaugh, 2010). This is viewed as a major benefit because it keeps people who commit crimes processed through the system in a timely fashion; those who oppose it feel that it is something which provides guilty parties with a range of unneeded protections that they don't deserve and also shouldn't receive (Limbaugh, 2010). On the other hand, the due process of law believe that the model is ultimately beneficial as it can help to minimize mistakes while striving to not punish the innocent by thwarting and eliminating corruption as much as possible, and minimizing the risk of imprisoning the innocent. In that sense, the Fourth Amendment functions very strongly and prominently as a means of offering protection to ordinary civilians. It does this by setting limits on all that the police force is able to engage in, such as by putting a limit on the ability of the police force to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures: thus, law enforcement officers have to go through the proper channels to get a warrant and to make seizures or arrests. For instance, the Supreme Court decided in the case Riverside v. McLaughlin that holding a person in police custody for more than two days after being arrested and still without probably cause is a violation of a person's Fourth amendment rights (Limbaugh, 2010). It's common for law enforcement officials to complain that the Fourth amendment and (with it the Fifth Amendment) puts a certain level of limitation on their ability to combat crime: careful examination means that the limits on law enforcement actually originate from various decisions developed by the courts in respect to their perspective on the Fourth Amendment (Perron, 2013).

New interpretations like these can either limit or expand the overall power of the police. Pieces of legislation which protect the rights of the individual continue to be successful in America today, such as " 1) a right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, 2) a right against arrest without probable cause, 3) a right against self-incrimination, 4) a right to an attorney, and 5) a right to fair questioning by the police. Of course this is just a small sampling of the individual rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and they are continually subject to change as interpreted by the courts" (Perron, 2013). Furthermore, those who support the due process model do argue for the fact that the rights of the individual do in fact represent the rights of the greater collective.