Criminal Law Analysis

As compared to the immigration policy of Arizona, the decision of vesting authority in federal prosecutors by the federal government is normally dependent on whether it agrees with local sentencing judgments. This is contrary to Arizona’s immigration policy where the involvement of the federal government in the detaining and removal of dangerous criminal aliens is obstructed by local law-enforcement officers. While states serve as laboratories where sentencing differences and variation in practical rules are not considered, the role of sentencing is the driving force behind the federal government’s involvement in local crime.

In fact, sentencing is central to the involvement of federal government in local crime. Just like the immigration policy of Arizona, there are major differences in the application of the criminal justice policy between the state and the federal government. Notably, in the criminal justice policy, these differences make the state to practice a more important structure of reference for federalism questions. These differences in the application of the criminal law usually revolve around the federal government’s ability and willingness to make representative gestures with legislation and enforcement.

Moreover, the differences also revolve around the states’ relatively firmer foundation in practical realities. The states also weigh more of the relevant variables in the local enforcement of criminal law than the federal government. Conflict and Crime Control Model vs. Consensus and Due Process Model: The Conflict and Crime Control Model as well as the Consensus and Due Process Model are the two models of crime which have been opposing each other for years.

While the due process model emphasizes on an individual’s rights to life, liberty or property without suitable legal measures and safeguards, the crime control model is dependent on the assumption of complete reliability of police fact-finding. In the crime control model, arrestees are treated as if they are already guilty while being deprived of their rights to life, liberty or property which is granted by the consensus and due process model.

While the due process model requires that a suspects’ rights are protected by the criminal justice system, both of these models play a significant role in shaping criminal procedure policy. Most importantly, the role these two models play in the implementation of policies generates from the fact that they are government funded programs. Whereas the crime control model fully supports government funded programs to take legal action accordingly, the consensus and due process model advocates for less government involvement with increased private enterprise (Steve 2010).

The implementation of these models in policies has no major difference because they are dependent on the government’s involvement, despite of the level of government. The immigration policy of Arizona follows the model of conflict and crime control model, which is dependent on the assumption of complete reliability of police fact-finding. My opinion is that this immigration policy follows this model because the local law-enforcement officers have the right to arrest someone once they suspect that their immigration status is undocumented.

Given the fact that arrestees or suspects are treated as already guilty in the conflict and crime control model, Arizona police officers can hand over the suspects to the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Department. Given the fact that the program permits partner local agencies to enforce immigration laws, Arizona’s immigration policy may lead to racial-profiling. This policy also depicts the clear difference in application of policies between the state and federal government because it deprives the federal government the responsibility of enacting and enforcing immigration laws.

The difference is also demonstrated by the quest of other states to follow suit and implement immigration policies that are similar to Arizona’s. In my opinion, Arizona’s immigration policy is unconstitutional because it not only deprives the federal government its responsibility but it may also lead to racial profiling, violation of civil rights and diversion of federal money. On the hand, the criminal justice policy in the United States follows the consensus and due process model.

I tend to think so because this policy protects the suspects’ rights to life, liberty and property while being investigated. In attempts to ensure that these rights are protected, state governments take care of the prison costs for all defendants, regardless of whether they are accused by a local prosecutor or a state appointee. Although there is a difference in the application of the criminal justice policy from state to state, the procedures are constitutional and do not deprive the federal government its responsibility.

In my opinion, the criminal justice policy is also constitutional because law-enforcement officers do not have authority which may lead to the violation of civil rights and racial profiling among other human rights abuses. In conclusion, the effectiveness of both of these policies is determined by evaluating a city with heavy enforcement with another of less enforcement that has the same demographics. The resultant difference demonstrates whether more or less government intervention in the implementation of these policies would be advantageous. References: Barkow E R (2010, February 25).

Federalism and Criminal Law: What Feds can lean from the States. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://papers. ssrn. com/sol3/Delivery. cfm/SSRN_ID1562788_code419245. pdf? abstractid=1559251&mirid=1 Nowicki D (2010, April 25). Court Fight Looms on New Immigration Law. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://www. azcentral. com/news/articles/2010/04/25/20100425immigration-bill-jan-brewer-arizona. html Steve (2010). What are the Conflict of Crime Control Model and Consensus Due Process Model? Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://answers. yahoo. com/question/index? qid=20100407160902AAl9uaT