Crime Control Model vs. Due Process Model Explained

Introduction: Two Competing Models

Over the years, theorists have developed several frameworks to describe crime as a social phenomenon. Two of today's most prominent are the conflict/crime control model and the consensus/due process model. Both attempt to explain the origins of crime and guide the operation of the criminal justice system, but they approach the subject from fundamentally different perspectives. The crime control model is focused on enforcing the law and maintaining social order, while the due process model is primarily concerned with protecting individual rights.

One of the enduring difficulties with the American criminal justice system is that it has tried to accomplish both goals simultaneously, despite widespread disagreement about whether those goals are compatible — or whether they are even motivated by the same values. It is important to understand, however, that neither model is presented as a perfect description of reality or as an ideal system. Instead, as Packer (1968) explains, "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 whose normative future likewise involves a series of resolutions of the tensions between competing claims."

Law Enforcement Under Each Model

Law enforcement plays similar, yet meaningfully different, roles under each of these frameworks. In both models, law enforcement is responsible for protecting the public and apprehending criminals. Officers are expected to enforce the law against those who break it, regardless of the theoretical approach taken. Furthermore, both models acknowledge that there are limits to what law enforcement can do in the course 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 model advocates for a police state.

However, in the conflict/crime control model, law enforcement plays a far more adversarial role than it does under the due process model. Its primary function is to bring criminal conduct under tight control and reduce criminal activity. As Perron (n.d.) describes, 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."

In the Due Process Model, the ideal role of law enforcement is to discover the truth — though this model also acknowledges the low probability of reliably doing so. At the law enforcement stage, the most meaningful distinction between the two models may be the degree of zealousness with which officers pursue criminal apprehension.

The Role of Prosecutors and Convictions

In the Crime Control Model, the prosecutor's primary job is to convict the person charged with a crime. This goal is reflected in an emphasis on high numbers of solved and cleared cases, including overall conviction rates. The efficiency that this model prizes, however, necessarily creates a risk of wrongful convictions — a risk that many proponents of this model are willing to accept as a cost of effective crime control.

The Due Process Model takes a substantially different position. It holds that the criminal justice system must remain attentive to the fundamental freedoms and individual rights of every citizen. According to Perron (n.d.), "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."

Corrections, Punishment, and Rehabilitation

The two models diverge sharply in how they view the purpose of corrections. Under the Crime Control Model, corrections exists to punish offenders and prevent them from reoffending. It is therefore unsurprising that the death penalty is frequently supported by those who advocate a crime control approach.

In contrast, the Due Process Model incorporates a broader range of correctional goals, including both retribution and rehabilitation. Because the Due Process approach treats each accused individual as a distinct person rather than simply a criminal type, it aligns naturally with the view that someone who has committed a crime is not necessarily destined to reoffend. Rehabilitation as a correctional goal receives far greater emphasis within this framework than within the crime control tradition.

References

Packer, H. (1968). Two models of the criminal process.

Perron, B. (n.d.). The crime control and due process models. The Criminal Defense Investigation Training Council.