The criminal procedure policy is largely shaped by the values and principles of Due Process and Crime Control Mode; each of them playing important roles in the emergence of modern jurisprudence and legal administrative approach. In the very simplistic terms, Due process states that without full and complete criminal trial, individuals cannot be deprived from their life, liberty, property (Banaszak, 2002). It also calls for legal safeguards for individuals booked under criminal charges.
The crime control model on the other hand places heavy emphasis on circumstantial evidences, preliminary eye witness accounts, and police version in the legal procedures (Galligan, 1996). Supporters of the above two models have frequently entered fierce debates on their underlying philosophies, moralities, and principles. Critics of due process have claimed that it places deliberate impediments in prosecution of criminals, while crime control model is criticized for victimizing even innocents, and undermining the values of humanity, equitability, and fundamental rights of people (Banaszak, 2002).
Although a macro analysis would suggest that both these models stand at opposite to each other, the reality is more complex and intertwined. Following sections would analyze how the present legal structure represents a successful confluence of Due Process and Crime Control model (Galligan, 1996). Analysis Contrary to the perception that due process is ideologically against persecution of criminals or repressing crime, the process stresses on creating a fool proof and infallible system of evidences and validation before starting the criminal trial.
Therefore it rejects the premises of circumstantial evidences and eye witnesses, because they can be notoriously unreliable, biased, and perception depended, to construct any reliable representation of truth (Galligan, 1996). Emotive factors and psychological disturbances of witnesses do not allow creation of an informal and impartial account of the crime, always allowing probability of an error in the true rendering of the evidence (Packer, 1986).
These considerations lead to rejection of the formal evidence gathering and fact finding procedures as indefinite and inconclusive in creating a factual and impartial tribunal system for criminal trial (Banaszak, 2002). In its purest form, the due process method states that as long as there is possibility or allegation of human error in the trial system, the final adjudication should not be passed. A major contribution of Due process in the legal system has been introduction of watchfulness on behalf of overzealous and enthusiast police officers and lawyers who advocate speed and expedite trial- the essence of crime control model.
This model is formed on the values that repress and elimination of crime is the primary function of any criminal procedure system (Packer, 1986). The founding premises of the model are as follows: If criminals are not detained, controlled, and deterred by legal procedures then the validity and purpose of the entire legal system would stand defeated. The defeat and failure of the legal system and law enforcement model would see law abiding people becoming the victim in a system of injustice, human rights violation, and insecurity.
This would greatly diminish the functioning capacity of the society, and thus effectuate the breakdown of civic order and public control system. Control of crime, therefore, is the essential to maintain the framework of civic structure, and hence there should be a high degree of criminal apprehension and conviction to retain faith and trust in the existing civic model (Packer, 1986). For effective conviction, the system should maintain a premium on speed and finality, as delayed justice is perceived as denied justice.
Speed can only be ensured if the formal legal rituals and ceremonious trials are cut down, facts are gathered quickly, and verdict is announced based on the minimum set of facts that confirm the guilt and the crime. Conclusions It cannot be affirmatively said that the present legal structure is a model confluence of both the approaches, or that they have ensured a fool proof legal procedure system where innocents are never prosecuted and the guilty are reasonably convicted.
Nonetheless, they have rationalized the trial system and created the foundation for a more equitable and trustworthy criminal procedure system. Reference Banaszak, R. 2002. Fair Trial Rights of the Accused: A Documentary History. Greenwood Press. Galligan, D. J. 1996. Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures. Clarendon Press. Packer, H. L. 1986, Two Models of the Criminal Process. The Stanford University Press.