Сrime Control Model

The Due Process Model and Crime Control Model represent two separate value systems, which compete for priority in the operation of the criminal process (Neubauer, 2001, p 12). “The “Due Process Model” proceeds from the premise that protecting the rights of the individual is primary, whereas the Crime Control Model” holds that repressing crime is the key value. ” (Neubauer, 2001, 12) When comparing the two control models their views differ dramatically in reference to the causes of crime.

Additionally, when comparing due process and crime control models one need to remember, “proponents of both models embrace constitutional values which are necessary to the kind of society in which American wish to live. ” (Zalman, 2008) In the following compare and contrast paper, plea-bargaining and the three strikes law are chosen discuss the policies conflict, and crime control model versus the consensus and due process model. Additionally answers will be provided to questions regarding the effects on law enforcement, courts, differences between federal and state and local polices, and how to measure the effectiveness of said polices.

Compare and Contrast of Policies Plea Bargaining Plea bargains are one of the most controversial practices in the criminal justice system because of the fear the innocent defendants would plea and judges imposing unduly lenient sentences (Neubauer, 2008, p. 20). Further criticism focuses on the deterrent effect of punishment. According to the crime control model, court hearings have eroded the deterrent effect of punishment (Neubauer, 2009, p. 20).

Not only is the problem serious, but there is evidence that it is getting worse, suggesting that, whatever deterrent effect the criminal justice system does have, its effective-ness in deterring crime may be decreasing over time. ” (Barnett-Hagel, 1977) However, some believe plea bargains allow the guilty to escape with a light sentence; therefore, weakens the adversary system because a person is innocent until proven and every defendant has a right to trial. Critics claim plea bargains are secret, sneaky arrangements that are opposing to the individual’s will. Three Strikes Law

Many conflicts of the three strikes law have been unintended and uneven impacts. In summarizing a few, because of the wide scope of the provisions of California’s three-strikes law the result is long prison terms for many less serious crimes (Brown, 2005). Among the 36,000 second-strikers, less than one-fourth were admitted to prison for a violent offense (Brown, 2005). Secondly, prosecutorial discretion over charging and plea bargaining has resulted in very uneven application of the law between different jurisdictions within the state (Legislative Analyst Office, 1995).

In addition, African-Americans comprise 31% of inmates in the state’s prisons, but 37% of offenders convicted under two strikes and 44% of three strikes offenders (Legislative Analyst Office, 1995). Comparing Plea Bargaining and Three Strikes Law Although each jurisdiction plea bargaining process varies, “from a highly adversarial system and setting to one in which the participants cooperatively seek “substantive justice” and from a court where only charges may be bargained because of mandatory sentencing policies to one that focuses on sentences because they are authorized to be indeterminate for most, if not all, offenses (Hall, 2005).

Due Process Model Although the Due Process model is said to resemble an obstacle course, the values are based upon repression of crime and not always assuming law enforcement’s fact-finding is correct, which is realistic because the model leaves room for error. (Gioson, 2005) (Neubauer, 2001, p 13) However, due process is said to assume automatically the individual is guilty of the alleged charge before the case is proven; therefore, within the model finality is very low and leaves room for appeal.

The due process model does not want to prosecute an innocent person; therefore, the model “demands the prevention and elimination of mistakes to any extent possible; therefore, is suspicious of those in the legal profession who are power hungry and always wanting to convict. (Neubauer, 2001) Crime Control Model According to the Crime Control Model, "the repression of the criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal process, which refers back to protecting privacy while maintaining public safety. (Neubauer, 2001, p 13) Furthermore, often the crime control model is perceived as negative because the model assumes the person charged of the alleged crime is guilty before entering the courtroom and supports law enforcement and prosecutors extensively (Neubauer, 2001, p 13).

Differentiations Differentiations between the models include the fact the Crime Control Model is based upon "factual guilt" and the Due Process Model is based upon "legal guilt. (Gioson, 2005) (Neubauer, 2001, p 14) Furthermore, due process is based upon “equal treatment” because the model undergoes errors, which cause for an invalid conviction. In addition, the Crime Control Model strongly contradicts the view, which sometimes hinders a person’s rights within the system. (Neubauer, 2001) Further, an analogy often used to describe the Crime Control Model is the “conveyer belt” because the model moves the "alleged Criminal" through the system with the forethought that everyone is guilty until proven otherwise.

Furthermore, the model limits the amount of plea-bargaining and appeals; therefore, the demand for "finality is high in the Crime Control Model. " (Neubauer, 2001, p. 13) Law Enforcement Role in Policies In reference to plea- bargaining the sharing of evidence among police, prosecutors and defense lawyers, known as the discovery process, which is crucial to criminal cases. The right of people accused of crimes to know all the evidence against them is enshrined in the U. S. Constitution. (Ball, 2005)

However, routinely police and prosecutors try to keep essential information from defense lawyers, violating the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes (Ball, 2005). Besides violating the constitution and potentially putting innocent people behind bars, the actions of the district attorney's office and police waste large amounts of time and money, as defenders must go to court repeatedly to obtain evidence to which they are legally entitled (Ball, 2005). Three Strikes Law caused safety concerns for police officers because at the time of arrest, when an offender acing a long prison term realizes he has nothing to lose by resisting arrest.

A Fullerton police lieutenant conducting research for a management course found evidence linking the law to violence against police officers, noting that six officers killed since 1994 was tied at least partially to the law (Shepherd, 2002). However, many officers are of the opinion that it is not unusual for potential third strikers to act more aggressively by resisting or trying to commit suicide (Shepherd, 2002).

Prosecutors and Court Role in Policies Plea bargains can be arranged in minutes and allow defense attorneys and prosecutors some control. Many of our court systems having heavy caseloads, therefore, it is necessary for prosecutors to plea-bargain cases in order to move the cases along. Plea bargaining is a plea of guilt with responsibility and the defendant is convicted instead of escaping with no conviction at all. Plea bargaining is essential to our court process and if properly administered, produces substantive justice.

Prosecutors play an influential role in determining whether the three strikes law will be used when they exercise discretion at charging and in plea negotiation (Shepherd, 2002). Studies of shown practice and policy differences among district attorneys' offices resulted in uneven application of the law throughout California and as prosecutors gained experience with the law, the more populated counties tended to reduce prior strikes more often than when the law first passed (Shepherd, 2002).

Corrections Role in Policies Plea bargaining assist the criminal justice system in moving cases quickly, and in some cases, the defendant is given a lenient sentence, but not without consideration of the defendant’s criminal history, the question of guilt, and how much leniency is appropriate. Plea bargaining allows the defendant to think he is getting a deal, whereas it is the criminal justice system succeeding in that the defendant is convicted instead of escaping with no conviction at all.

By sending offenders to prison for longer terms and reducing available good time credits, three strikes laws contribute to the problems of prison crowding and contribute to the high cost of incarcerating inmates (Legislative Analyst Office, 1995). Projections for prison crowding after the adoption of three strikes have been revised downward, but even to meet the revised estimates, prison space will have to be vastly expanded (Legislative Analyst Office, 1995).

Differences of Federal, State and Local Application of Policies Although each jurisdiction plea bargaining process varies, “from a highly adversarial system and setting to one in which the participants cooperatively seek “substantive justice” and from a court where only charges may be bargained because of mandatory sentencing policies to one that focuses on sentences because they are authorized to be indeterminate for most, if not all, offenses (Hall, 2005).

Furthermore, some courts with emphasis are on the contestability of cases; therefore, if the facts are undisputed, a guilty plea becomes a predetermined conclusion, and only a disposition needs to be negotiated. (Hall, 2005) Each court and jurisdiction plea bargaining process varies depending on the involvement of defendants, defense attorney, prosecutor and judge. While political rhetoric dominated much of the debate preceding the adoption of the three strikes law and with claims that three-strikes laws were an essential tool for crime control and the only way to ensure that violent felons were kept off the street (Brown, 2005).

Most states and the federal government drafted laws that were narrowly tailored and so their use has been limited and their disruptive impact minimized (Brown, 2005). Opinion of Policies Criticism of the criminal courts focuses on prosecutors opting to plea bargain quickly and judges are imposing lenient sentences. (Neubauer, 2008, p. 20). However, with this criticism I do not agree. Yes, plea bargains are one of the most controversial practices in the criminal justice system because of the fear the innocent defendants would plea.

However, plea bargaining saves the court time and money. Furthermore, plea bargaining provides that flexibility necessary to make adjustments and produce substantive justice (Neubauer, 2002, p. 325). Furthermore, I do not agree with the criticism of judges imposing unduly lenient sentences. In certain situations I believe that judge’s accept plea bargains to move along the crowded calendar. In addition, many jails are overcrowded so many judges are faced with the decision to release convicted criminals before they have completed there sentences.

Therefore, judges often plea bargain in order to process out offenders who are not likely to do much jail time leads to fewer problems with overcrowding (Nolo, 2005). Further criticism focuses on the deterrent effect of punishment. According to the crime control model, court hearings have eroded the deterrent effect of punishment (Neubauer, 2009, p. 20). “Not only is the problem serious, but there is evidence that it is getting worse, suggesting that, whatever deterrent effect the criminal justice system does have, its effective-ness in deterring crime may be decreasing over time. (Barnett-Hagel, 1977) Furthermore, what can be done to address this due process model is to make sure that the defendant is really guilty by allowing more time to make sure that an innocent person is not being incarcerated or executed. In addition, with today’s technology, it is essential for the criminal justice system to use every available tool in order to improve concept of justice.

I found in California, in 94- under the state's "three-strikes" sentencing law which was new at that time, the estimated costs of incarcerating 126,400 felons over age 50 are enormous, and said to be as much as hundreds of billions of dollars (Brown, 2005). The average cost for inmates over 50 is expected to be triple that- in the range of $60,000 to $69,000 and higher for inmates 60 years or older (Brown, 2005). So then the obvious next question would be at their age what harm would it be to society if they were released?

Well, according the Stanford News release, studies have shown that the elderly inmates are less likely to re-offend. Therefore, given that elderly offenders are so much less likely to commit new offenses coupled with the high costs of keeping them I would question California’s cost estimates and crime savings predictions because their “three-strikes-law” is flawed and extremely costly! The Due Process Model entails legal procedures, which offers confidence to the enforcement and protection of individual rights. Whereas the Crime Control Model is an aggressive war on crime; however, at times creates collateral damage.

Furthermore, the due process model demands a careful and informed consideration of the facts of each individual case and has primary mission to protect innocent people from being wrong convicted, this is what America’s Criminal Process is about. When comparing the two models and considering our world today, the crime control model through due process will allow the criminal justice system success in combating crime and follows framework the founding fathers considered when writing the United States Constitution.

Conclusion The Due Process Model and Crime Control Model represent two separate value systems, which compete for priority in the operation of the criminal process (Neubauer, 2001, p 12) comparing the two control models their views differ dramatically in reference to the causes of crime. Nevertheless, when comparing due process and crime control models one need to remember, “proponents of both models embrace constitutional values which are necessary to the kind of society in which American wish to live. (Zalman, 2008)

Plea bargains are one of the most controversial practices in the criminal justice system because of the fear the innocent defendants would plea. However, plea bargaining saves the court time and money and provides that flexibility necessary to make adjustments and produce substantive justice (Neubauer, 2002, p. 325). The adoption of the three strikes law claims that three-strikes laws is an essential tool for crime control and the only way to ensure that violent felons were kept off the street.

Nevertheless, under the state's "three-strikes" law, the estimated costs of incarcerating 126,400 felons over age 50 are staggering, costs much as hundreds of billions of dollars (Brown, 2005) In addition, according the Stanford News release, studies have shown that the elderly inmates are less likely to re-offend. Therefore, given that elderly offenders are so much less likely to commit new offenses coupled with the high costs of keeping these inmates because their “three-strikes-law” is flawed and extremely costly!