Conflict/Crime Control Model vs. Consensus/Due Process

Conflict/Crime Control Model vs. The Consensus/Due Process Model

Over the years, theorists have developed several theories to describe crime as a social phenomenon. Two of today's most popular theories are the conflict/crime control model and the consensus/due process model. Both theories attempt to explain the origins of crime, but they approach crime from two very different perspectives. The conflict/crime control model is focused on crime control and aims to enforce the law and maintain social order. In contrast, the consensus / due process model is worried about protecting individual rights. One of the difficulties with the American criminal justice system is that it has tried to accomplish both goals, despite the fact that many people not only feel that the goals of the two approaches are incompatible, but also that they are differently motivated. Furthermore, it is important to understand that no one is suggesting that either model captures the reality or even an ideal criminal justice system. Instead, "the two models merely afford a convenient way to talk about the operation of a process whose day-to-day functioning involves a constant series of minute adjustments between the competing demands of two value systems and who normative future likewise involves a series of resolutions of the tensions between competing claims" (Packer, 1968).

Law enforcement plays similar, but different, roles under each of these policies. In both policies, law enforcement is responsible for protecting the public and for apprehending criminals. Those in law enforcement are expected to enforce laws against those who break them, regardless of the theoretical approach taken. Furthermore, both policies believe that there are limits to what law enforcement can do in the process of investigating criminal behavior. There is a "general assumption that a degree of scrutiny and control must be exercised with respect to the activities of law enforcement officers, that the security and privacy of the individual may not be invaded at will" (Packer, 1968). In other words, neither policy advocates a police state. However, in the conflict/crime control model, law enforcement plays a much more adversarial role than it does in the due process model. In the conflict/crime control model, law enforcement's primary role is to bring criminal conduct under tight control and reduce criminal activity. " Proponents endorse an all out assault upon criminal activity…Such a strategy may include targeting high crime areas, increased patrols and traffic stops, profiling, undercover sting operations, wiretapping, surveillance, and aggressive raids and searches designed to break the back of criminal activity. Proponents argue that certain individual rights must be sacrificed for the common good" (Perron, Unk.). In the Due Process Model, the ideal role of law enforcement is to discover the truth, though the Due Process Model also emphasizes the low probability of discovering truth. However, at the law enforcement stage, the main differences in the two models may be the considered the zealousness of those engaged in apprehending criminals.

In the Crime Control Model, the job of the prosecutor is to convict the person who has been charged with a crime. This goal focuses on high numbers of solved and cleared crimes, including conviction rates. However, the efficiency that is the focus of the crime control model necessarily leads to some wrongful convictions, which is a risk that many are willing to take. The Due Process Model argues that the criminal justice system has to be concerned with the fundamental freedoms and individual rights of individual citizens. "The due process model demands a careful and informed consideration of the facts of each individual case. According to this model, law enforcement agents must recognize the rights of suspects during arrest, questioning, and handling. In addition, constitutional guarantees must be considered by judges and prosecutors during trials. The primary mission of the due process model is to protect innocent people from wrongful conviction" (Perron, Unk.).

What is very interesting is to see the different ways that the corrections process is viewed in each of these policies. Under the Crime Control Model, corrections is meant to punish and to prevent a criminal from re-offending. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the death penalty is frequently supported by those advocating a crime control approach. In contrast, the Due Process model examines other aspects of the corrections process, such as retribution and also rehabilitation. Because the Due Process approach considers each individual accused of a crime, it should come as no surprise that it is aligned with an approach that suggests that someone who has committed a crime is not necessarily to be a criminal reoffender.

It would be simplistic to suggest that there is a difference between federal application and state and local application of these policies. There is, but federal differences are also going to reflect regional differences, as members of the federal criminal justice system are also influenced by their local areas. A more salient question may be to ask about different state and local application of the policies. For example, the death penalty, which firmly falls in line with the Crime Control Model, is not even an option in many states, while some states, such as Texas and California, are well-known for the large number of people on their death rows and their high numbers of executions. Not surprisingly, these high death-penalty states are also plagued by concerns about actual innocence claims by people in their criminal justice systems. More interesting, micro analysis has shown death-penalty prosecutions to vary by county or parish, not simply by state. This is an indication that there is a difference in how crime is approached, depending on local area. However, while the federal government has historically been required to observe greater due process than state or local governments, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to require the same level of process at state and federal levels, suggesting that such differences are not only less existent now than in the past, but also that the differences in the two systems should continue to decline.

My opinion of the two policies is complicated. I do not wholly advocate either of the policies. For example, I believe in Due Process and the notion that our criminal justice system is a sham if we convict innocent people of a crime, even if that means letting guilty people go because of evidentiary or due process standards. On the other hand, I believe in the death penalty for those convicted under a true due process standard. I also believe in aggressive crime control tactics; even those tactics would not necessarily result in evidence that could be used to support a criminal conviction. I believe that the war on drugs has complicated this issue where it is difficult to even begin to assess whether there can be consensus on what crimes should be punished at higher rates, since a first-time murderer is likely to receive a less substantial sentence than a third-time drug offender in many jurisdictions. I believe that reflects a top-down strategy, meant not only to control crime but also reinforce existing social status and norms, but those issues are somewhat outside of the concern of this essay.