Herbert Packer's Two-Model: Crime Control And Due Process

The main parts of a criminal justice system can best be described as a discretionary model, because so many steps are taken from the stages of committing a crime to being prosecuted and  possibly release from correctional institutions in the future.  Each one of these steps have a serious deciding elements in them that play a role in the prosecution of a criminal. As stated in the text book “no two cases are alike, and no two defendants are alike,” (Barkan, 17). Because of the uniqueness of each case and the people involved in it a system must be put in place to insure that at every stage of the criminal justice system there is a set of questions and decisions that are being made effectively and properly. This insures both fairness and structure to what is

Going back to the 1790’s the Federal Government have provided the accused with protection. Even though they are being charged with a crime including felony crime this does not give the system the right to do the accused any kind of way. Therefore, the Bill of Rights protects the accused from unfair and unjust treatment. This paper went over some brief history regarding the Bill of Rights and how the 6th Amendment is what it is today, reviewed the meaning and purpose of the 6th Amendment to a speedy trail, as well as discussed the considerations to whether a trail has been

A comparison between the Due process model and crime control model Within the criminal justice system, there are two competing models: the crime control model and the due process model. These two models were constructed by Robert Packer and each represents a particular school of thought. In managing crime, there is the individual i.e. the suspect and there is the society. The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice.

It is interesting to me that Stevenson states that capital punishment is shaped by the constraints of poverty, race, geography, and local politics. It seems as if these constraints are the very reason America debates the death penalty today. Stevenson also states that the death penalty in the United States has increasingly comes to symbolize a disturbing tolerance for error and injustice.

The death penalty has been significantly changing according to these six cases: Atkins v. Virginia (2002), Roper v. Simmons (2002), Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), Graham v. Florida (2010), and Miller v. Alabama (2012). These six cases discuss the “evolving standards of decency”. The “evolving standards of decency” state that the implementation of the death penalty is deemed unconstitutional for certain circumstances, defendants, and crimes. When implementing this test, the courts analyze the most prevalent opinions among the different state legislatures, judges, sentencing juries, and the general public in order to determine whether the use of the death penalty is cruel and unusual.

The Court relied on distinct “strands of precedent” to justify its Miller conclusion. According to the Court, the two classifications for proportionality challenges are the length of term-of-years, accounting for the attendant circumstances; and categorical restrictions when imposing the death penalty (Darden, 2014). There were five factors introduced with Miller’s case by the Supreme Court. The five characteristics or consequences of juveniles’ immaturity relevant for mitigation of

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the rights of every individual to claim the protection of the law, whenever he receives an injury,” said Chief Justice John Marshall. The laws during this time did not protect Crispin. Some would agree that Crispin should have killed John Aycliffe. and some would disagree. Crispin should have killed John for three reasons, because young Crispin was in danger, cruel John was trying to attack him, and Crispin could save his friend Bear.

Warren McCleskey was convicted of armed robbery and the murder of a white police officer. At his trial the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. McCleskey challenged his death sentence and claimed that he was being subjected to racial discrimination and provided statistical evidence showing racial disparities in the administration of death sentences. He also presented strong evidence showing that African Americans have been disproportionately sentenced to capital punishment compared to white Americans. While I obviously think that what McCleskey did was wrong, I definitely think that he was right to challenge the constitutionality of his death sentence.

As he works on a case he invests his time and effort into finding what a justifiable and truthful. But, with working in his field come risks especially when it meant defending someone who others think the death penalty is a justifiable way of

In discussion of In Cold Blood, one controversial issue has been Perry’s plea. Was justice served correctly by sending Perry to death row? On the one hand, it is an eye for an eye, which interpretates revenge. On the other hand, he should have been sentenced on a insane plea which would have resulted in on keeping him alive, and treat his psychological illness. Truman Capote demonstrates the trial in his book In Cold Blood.

Overall these innocent men deserved more than what they recieved, an unfair treatment in and out of the courtroom. Both cases had African American men that were judged by a jury of all white people and because they raped a woman. If they lost this case it meant they would receive the death penalty. This was always going to be an unfair trial. In To kill a Mockingbird it is said that “A jury never looks at a defendant it has convicted,

Next comes the sentencing phase in which the lawyers can submit even more evidence and argue for what the defendant’s sentence will be. Then it is left for the jury to decide what the final ruling will be. They have to believe that the defendant committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt to sentence them to death. Since the case went through the correct procedure, it does not violate the fourteenth amendment because Gregg did get equal protection of the law.

Some people think that the government should be more punitive when it comes to crime, that criminals should be caught and punished swiftly and harshly in order to protect society as a whole, while others believe that individual rights should be protected and that the criminal justice system needs to insure that individual rights are preserved. In 1964, a paper entitled, “Two Models of the Criminal Process”, was written by Herbert L. Packer that outlined these two thoughts for our society. Today, our criminal justice system is mainly based on the concept of the “Due Process

“In countries with a properly functioning legal system, the mob continues to exist, but it is rarely called upon to mete out capital punishment. The right to take human life belongs to the state. Not so in societies where weak courts and poor law enforcement are combined with intractable structural injustices. “In our present day society we as Americans have the cognitive dissonance that what the courts say are final, but also hold to the fact that the majority’s opinion rules.

The criminal justice system is responsible for delivering punishment to breakers of the law, and according to Professor Colin S Diver, the criminal justice system derives its authority with a reliable “moral credibility” (Diver 5). However, the Norsefire methodology of delivering justice is not one that exhibits a