The criminal justice system in the United States has over time and in recent times been developed in two model systems. The crime control model and due process model. The two systems have been adopted over time to deal with the spiraling rate of crime. On the one hand conflict and crime control model which other commentators have referred as social reality crime tend to associate the crime on how it is affected by the dynamics that mould the society’s social, economic and political structure.
The crime control model works on the assumption that the criminal law as enacted by parliament and enforced by the police and prosecutors can control crime. This model looks to the legislature as opposed to the courts as its validating authority and accepts extensive reliance that legislatures place on the criminal sanction. (The new law victim’s rights, Kent Roach). The crime control policy otherwise termed by Malcolm M Feeley and Jonathan Simon as a new concept in their article ‘The new penology’ is neither about punishing nor about rehabilitating individuals.
The system is about identifying and managing unruly groups. On the other hand consensus and due process model describes the values that courts have embraced in many of their decisions. The model’s main purpose is protection of rights of citizens. Due process is like an obstacle course, you have to keep going through the legal obstacle to ensure in the end you convict the right person. In crime control model the law enforcement possesses the investigative powers to arrest people for questioning, and this is often the fastest way by which to establish the suspect is factually guilty.
This model performs the role of getting the criminal off the street and protects the innocent. The law enforcement leads in this role. In due process model, law enforcement has little role to play. The bulk is performed by the prosecution which lays the crime committed by the offender before the court. The court’s role is to find the guilt of the offender and ensuring that the offender’s rights are safeguarded. In controlling crime, the correctional facilities have an important role to play, the kind of rehabilitating an offender who is released into the society matters a lot.
The correction can also play a significant role where offenders who are due to be released are not reformed enough to be sent to the unsuspecting members of the public. Malco M. Feeley & Jonathan in their new penology document focuses on what role correction can perform. They dwell more on incapacitation which they say promises to reduce the efforts of crime in society not by altering either offender or social context but by rearranging the distribution of offender in the society. If the prison can nothing else, the incapacitation theory hold says that, it can detain offender for a time and thus delay their resumption of criminal activity.
If such delay is sustained for enough time and enough offenders, siginificant aggregate effects in crime can take place although individual destinies are only marginally altered. The Federal application of the crime control has been traditionally directed at problems transcending state boundaries, with maintaining law and order in are subject exclusively to federal jurisdiction or national concern. The 107th congress did enhance authorities of the department of justice (DOJ) and in specific the Federal Bureau of Investigation in dealing with homeland security and anti-terrorism problems which arose from the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Included are expanded federal law enforcement authority in such areas as wiretapping and related investigative tool to aid law enforcement official in the war on terrorism e. g. USA Patriot Act. (Jo Anne O Bryant & Lis Segheli,congressional research Service update September 11,2002) Congress has been extending federal jurisdiction over crime to areas once considered to be within state and local jurisdiction (e. g. juvenile justice and gun control) and enlarging federal support of state and local efforts to combat crime over last two decades.
In general, the federal is trying to adopt crime control by pre-emptively dealing with measures which can enable prevention of crime in a bid to control. In contrast states have areas which they dwell on and some are left to the jurisdiction of the federal government or agencies. For example terrorism laws are federal laws are congress has come up with laws dealing with terrorism laws and also ways of controlling and safeguarding the boundaries of United States. The local or state jurisdiction has crime control measures within the sphere which does not overstep the mandate of federal agencies.
Matters to do with dues process are both for the state and federal. Due process has been a process of the courts and the courts always will endeavor to defend their mandate of making laws and at the same time protecting existing one. The state and the federal have no option when the courts tend to hold opinion which they legally support. The crime control policy is preemptive in nature. That is to say it seeks to have prevention done in order to check the rate of crime in society. To some extent it is a perfect system to deal with a rate of crime that never comes down.
Crime control policy does not have any adverse effect in the society’s social, economic state. While on the other hand due process being a court initiated process ensures that the rights are not violated by law enforcement. Due process is offender minded whereas crime control is society minded. It is relatively easier to ascertain the performance of crime control policy in comparison with due process. The rate of crime in society may fall relatively if the emphasis is laid crime. Opinion from the law enforcement can also be sought in evaluating their performance and what they think about the two policies.
The courts also may provide vital information with regard to due process because they can make the best judgment than law enforcement. Officials in correctional facilities can also provide vital information on the crime control model as they play a large part in implantation of some recommendations. 1. The new law victim’s rights, Kent Roach. 2. The new penology,Malcom M. Feeley & Jonathan Simon 3. Congressional Research Service update sept. 11,2002 ,Jo Anne O Bryant & Lisa Segheli