Crime Control Model vs. Due Process Model Explained
This paper examines and differentiates Herbert Packer's two "ideal type" models of the criminal process: the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model. The Crime Control Model prioritizes efficient processing of criminal cases through deference to police and prosecutorial judgment, while the Due Process Model emphasizes accuracy and the protection of the innocent through constitutional safeguards. Drawing on Packer (1969), Aviram (2010), and Feeley (2003), the paper traces post-Warren Court jurisprudence as a shift toward crime control values, analyzes the Herring decision and its implications for the exclusionary rule, and considers the emerging role of victims' rights as a competing framework alongside due process protections.
- Introduction to the Two Models: Defining crime control and due process models
- Post-Warren Court Trends and Crime Control: Four post-Warren shifts toward crime control
- The Herring Decision and the Exclusionary Rule: Herring ruling and exclusionary rule debate
- Victims' Rights and the Future of Criminal Justice: Victims' rights as emerging criminal justice framework
- Conclusion: Core epistemological differences between both models
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It applies a well-established theoretical framework — Packer's two models — as a consistent analytical lens throughout, grounding every argument in recognizable scholarly categories.
- The paper moves logically from theory to historical application (post-Warren Court) to a specific legal case (Herring), demonstrating how abstract models play out in real jurisprudence.
- It concludes by broadening the analysis to contemporary debates about victims' rights, showing awareness that Packer's binary framework may be insufficient for modern criminal justice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: two competing models are placed side by side, their assumptions and mechanisms are contrasted, and then case law and policy outcomes are used to evaluate which model currently dominates practice. This technique — defining ideal types, then testing them against empirical or doctrinal evidence — is a foundational method in law and social science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with definitions of both models, then narrows to four documented shifts in post-Warren Court doctrine that signal a move toward crime control values. It next focuses on the Herring case as a concrete example of those shifts. The final body section widens the scope again to consider victims' rights and the long-term trajectory of criminal justice policy, before a brief conclusion restates each model's core epistemological commitment.
Introduction to the Two Models
This paper examines and differentiates between two "ideal type" models of the criminal process: the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model. The Crime Control Model underlines an efficient criminal procedure by means of the early determination of guilt by law enforcement representatives (Aviram, 2010). The model requires considerable deference to police officers and prosecutors — the "torchbearers" of the criminal process (Feeley, 2003) — and, as a consequence, tolerates a degree of patience with their mistakes.
In comparison, the Due Process Model's main goal is safeguarding accuracy and avoiding the conviction of the innocent (Packer, 1969). Under a due process model, law enforcement judgment is seen as potentially biased (Packer, 1969) and is consequently carefully constrained by constitutional review and procedural safeguards acting as a "quality control" mechanism (Aviram, 2010).
Packer's models have been widely critiqued over the years (Feeley, 2003). Among the more compelling critiques is the observation that the models lack a shared epistemological basis — the Due Process Model refers primarily to doctrinal and normative justifications, while the Crime Control Model is by design a pragmatic description of the daily organization of law enforcement (Aviram, 2010).
References
Aviram, Hadar. (2010). Packer in context: Formalism and fairness in the due process model. Law & Social Inquiry, 35.
Packer, Herbert L. (1969). The limits of the criminal sanction. Indiana Maurer School of Law, Volume 44, Issue 3, Article 7.
Feeley, Malcolm M. (2003). Two models of the criminal justice system: An organizational perspective. Law & Society Review, 7, 407.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.