Community and the fate of the criminal

Second, only after probable cause has been established the criminal processing should be enforced. The CCM will not waste time and resources (in an ideal world) on innocent people so they must be sure that no reasonable doubt exists before pursuing a conviction on a suspect, even with their wide discretion on search and seizure processes. The conviction is the finality to the model and is very important the its foundation so the screening process must be thorough. The DPM is not as concerned with wrapping up the case as it is on the justice to be error free to ensure a good conviction.

A legal process was established to protect an individual's due process rights where first the police must gather enough evidence to have a suspect. Then they must prove to a judge there is reason to obtain a search warrant, and therefore must have proven that little doubt exists of the accused being a viable suspect. The prosecution is then encumbered with proving legal guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Third, both models deem that the government should have limited powers of investigation and apprehension.

The CCM prefers that the police and prosecution have more power for evaluating the evidence to determine if there is sufficient justification for holding the suspect for a further determination of guilt. The judges and other government, even defense attorneys, should be kept out of the investigation until it is ready for trial, due to the concern that they will slow the procedure and interfere with a good conviction. The DPM prefers that the power be limited with the police and judges.

The police limitation of power will assist in decreasing police abuse and protecting the accused from self-incrimination or coerced confession. The Judges should be limited under this model because only the Supreme Court can interpret and define the rights of people, and it is the appointed judge's job to enforce those decisions. Last, they both agree on an adversarial system, procedural due process, and the "day in court" notion, although the paths are different. The DPM positions itself to oppose those who seek convictions at the expense of the accused and not in a fair and just manner.

It uses the court to sort through the evidence to determine legal guilt and becomes adversaries to the police and prosecutors, placing the burden of proof on them. Although the CCM feels that lawyers belong in the courtroom and not in the fact-finding process, the system should remain adversarial to the criminal element and anyone who attempts to impede their efficient methods. The DPM is fundamentally based on procedural due process, following the rights set forth by the amendments from the Constitution.

The CCM follows a due process model as well, though not as stringent. It is not opposed to the rights of the individual being stripped away, but relies more on following the proper steps to ensure the rights of the larger community be protected, from the investigation to disposition as well as punishing police misconduct. The " day in court" notion is where all cases under the DPM are to end up, even plea bargains, where the magistrate will determine if the case or plea meets all of the requirements to their sentencing accordingly.

The CCM reserves the day in court for the final phase once the fact-finding has completed and the case is seen to the end. III. Constitutional Requirements The constitutional requirement under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments affect the Crime Control Model in a minimal way. They do not set constraints that inhibit the CCM from functioning, rather the pose obstacles to keep the system from getting above the law. The 4th amendment insures that people are to be secure against unreasonable search and seizures and warrants cannot be issued without probable cause.

This in no way constrains the CCM because it simply asks that no person be searched without probable, reasonable cause, and that should fall into line with the CCM concepts of their investigation to apprehend the guilty and secure a confession. If a reasonable cause did not exist then a confession is very unlikely. Furthermore, the 4th states that the warrant must describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized; this protects against unrelated items to the crime being seized and seeking a conviction for an otherwise innocent person.

The CCM's goal is to have a confession of guilt in order to save resources for maximum efficiency, however, the 5th amendment secures a person's right against self-incrimination. So, unless the police coerce a confession, the guilt must be determined by investigation, and if done properly the conviction can be secured. The amendment also protects against deprivation without due process and the protection against double jeopardy.

This does not impede the CCM by giving it guidelines, but it does ensure that the investigative process does not overstep its boundaries set forth by the law, and it also ensures that if the facts are in place the conviction will stay and there will be no further concern. However, if the facts were not all in and the wrong person was convicted, double jeopardy protects them from future prosecution. Finally, the 6th amendment deals with the court proceeding of a speedy and public trial, the right to be informed of the charges against them and the right to be represented by council.

The trial protects the defendant from the state detaining them for an unreasonable time while they build a case against them. However, the fact-finding investigation should not have any interest in this, per se that the accused would no longer be a suspect if there were no evidence to come to light in a efficacious manner. The right to be informed of the charges and a public trial protect the accused from prejudice but it also protects the accusers from accusations of prejudice, and that type of accusation would drastically slow down the criminal process.

The right to be represented by council is one that the CCM deems to impede their process, stating that an attorney would only instruct their client not to speak, however, if properly given their Miranda rights they may have chosen not to speak regardless. Furthermore, as with the 5th amendment against self-incrimination, if the physical evidence is obtained and the guidelines followed, the accused would not have a chance of appeal, thus the prosecution would have secured a good conviction.

Some examples of how the CCM can overcome the constitutional constraints and achieve goals are first, decriminalize actions the public has deemed no longer to be criminal, such as segregation. Second, impose more restraints on informal police fact-finding procedures in the streets. Last, the accused should be more informed of the charges against them and their rights during their first encounter with the police upon arrest. Also, allow council to be more interactive with the accused, that way both sides can come to a legal agreement that benefits the larger community and the fate of the criminal.