An Explanation Concerning the Main Influences of Crime Control Models in the U.S.

Explanation of the Emergence of Competing Models of Criminal Justice in Recent Decades

Today, the United States incarcerates more of its citizens per capita than any other country on earth, and this outcome is largely the result of the crime control model of criminal justice that has been predominate over the past several decades. Things may be changing, though, as the due process model becomes the criminal justice model of choice for a growing number of states. These two models represent the culmination of centuries of debate concerning the optimal approach to criminal justice, and there have been a number of other models used in the past. To determine how the current outcome emerged, the purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the relevant literature to provide an explanation concerning the factors that have historically influenced the type of criminal justice system that is in place in the United States. Following this review, the paper presents a summary of the research and important findings concerning the emergence of competing models of criminal justice in recent decades in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are six competing models of criminal justice as follows:

1. The due process model -- exacting justice between equal parties;

2. The crime control model -- punishing wrong and preventing further crime;

3. The bureaucratic model -- controlling crime and criminals;

4. The medical model -rehabilitating offenders;

5. The status passage model -- publicly denouncing the crime and criminal; and,

6. The power model -- maintaining domination by the ruling class and reinforcing class values (King, 1981).

Of these six foregoing models, the crime control and due process models have been the two most commonly used in the United States over the past several decades, with the former predominating for the majority of the 20th century.

Given the high stakes and countless types of criminal acts that plague modern society that are involved, it is little wonder that formulating an optimal criminal justice model has been a challenging enterprise for American lawmakers over the years. As the research that follows shows, though, public opinion is among the major factors that have influenced the type of criminal justice system that is in place at any given point in the nation’s history. For example, on the one hand, American society expects the criminal justice system to punish individuals for any crimes they commit commensurate with their severity. Proponents of this type of “get tough on crime” approach therefore subscribe to the crime control model. Taken to its extreme, the crime control model would incarcerate 99 innocent people in order to ensure that one criminal was brought to justice. In other words, the crime control model advocates a “get tough on crime” approach which is routinely trotted out by politicians who are trying to get elected by a body politic that is naturally concerned about crime.

On the other hand, though, American society also believes that everyone is entitled to their Sixth Amendment guarantee to the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise as well as a fair and speedy trial (Sanchez, 2017). This view is reflective of the due process model of criminal justice which, taken to its extreme, would allow 99 criminals go free in order to prevent the unjust incarceration of a single individual. Of course, few proponents of the due process model would subscribe to this extreme approach, but the comparison does underscore the fundamental differences between these two competing models of criminal justice.

Taken together, it is apparent that neither of these extremes represents a viable criminal justice model, but it is also apparent that both the application of the crime control and due process models exists along a continuum, with one approach predominating over the other depending on the place, time and prevailing Overton window. In this regard, Sanchez (2017) reports that, “The crime control model prioritizes the efficient suppression and control of crime for public safety and order, over individual freedom. This model advocates for swift and severe punishment for offenders, resembling an assembly-line justice process” (p. 70).

In sum, the prevailing political perspective at any point in American history serves to explain, at least in part, why certain crime control models are in place, but these perspectives can change due to shifts in public opinion. For instance, the effectiveness of the crime control model became the focus of a growing body of scholarship during the latter half of the 20th century when especially draconian laws such as the “three strikes” laws were in effect (Robinson, 2020). For instance, Sanchez (2017) points out that, “The crime control model is used when promoting policies that allow the system to get tough, expand police powers, change sentencing practices such as creating “Three Strikes,” and more” (p. 71).

By prioritizing harsh punishments over ensuring the protection of Sixth Amendment guarantees, the crime control model also relies on rapid plea-bargaining alternatives in order to free the courts for the next waves of criminal cases that are generated by this model (Sanchez, 2017). Indeed, the recognition of the ineffectiveness of the three strikes laws and other excessively harsh penalties in reducing recidivism while driving the costs of the criminal justice system through the roof can be regarded as the turning point when the due process model began to replace the crime control model in the United States (Klein, 2006).

It is important to note, though, that it is unlikely that state and federal lawmakers have sought to align criminal laws with either the crime control or due process models per se, but have rather attempted to respond to high crime rates and calls by their constituents for more effective solutions to crime by enacting laws they regard as most appropriate for this purpose. This point is made in a seminal study by Roach (1999) who notes, “Ever since Herbert Packer published ‘Two Models of the Criminal Process’ in 1964, much thinking about criminal justice has been influenced by the construction of models. Models provide a useful way to cope with the complexity of the criminal process” (p. 671). The due process and crime control models identified by Packer have subsequently become the two competing models in the American criminal justice system (Roach, 1999).