Criminal Justice Models

In Herbert Packer's book “The Limits of the Criminal Sanctions,” he describes the two criminal justice models that he referenced as the “due process model and the crime control model.” (Bohm, Hailey, 2012, p.16.). Herbert explained the two models in detail and made valid points about the advantages of both of the models. The crime control model was the first model described by Herbert Packer.

It gives the accused the right to have an attorney present while being questioned. This amendment also allows for an attorney to be appointed for those who cannot afford one. Under this amendment, the accused must know the charges against them and the exact place the trial will be held. In my opinion, the right to counsel is the most important part of this amendment. Miranda’s rights is an example of how the fifth and sixth amendments changed criminal law.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) acknowledged within their self-control theory that the opportunities for crime are readily accessible and crime is typically not difficult to perform. Yet, Gottfredson and Hirshi focused on the lack of self-control as the cause of crime rather than the opportunities for crime. Cohen and Felson (1979) in describing the routine activity theory, later stated that motivated offenders must find suitable targets that lack guardians in order for crime to occur. Situational crime prevention strategies were the first to focus on specific crimes, the environment and the reduction of crime opportunities.

Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and

The most problematic component in the criminal justice system are the courts. The courts were designed to ensure that individuals have a fair trial and that their rights are upheld. The courts act as a bridge between law enforcement and corrections. Courts produce the laws that sentence individuals to correctional facilities and it is the law enforcement 's job to enforce those laws. The actors in the courts such as judges, juries, and public defenders is a reason why courts are the most problematic component in the criminal justice system.

While a few theories are not as regular, others have developed and are utilized as a part of numerous criminal reviews today. Cutting edge criminologists consolidate the most important aspects of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and biological theories to advance their comprehension of criminal behavior. Rational choice theory, psychological, biological, and strain theory are used to analyze the

If proper steps are not taken an individual can be wrongfully convicted due to cognitive biases, institutional pressures, and normative features of the criminal justice system. For this reason, it is extremely important to take many factors into account when analyzing a case from the moment the individual went in for questioning till the moment the case is closed. Rightful steps must be made so that the presenting cognitive and physical biases do not cloud the judgment of the prosecutors or judges. For this reason, it is imperative that the criminal justice system has a comprehensive understanding of how tunnel vision can affect the system as a whole regarding criminal case

The theory of criminal justice This theory states that criminal procedures are part and branch of philosophy that focuses on punish those who break the law. There is a strong correlation between criminal procedures and the philosophy of law as well as the morals and ethical standards of society. Criminal law theorists put more emphases on offenses that can be seen as illegal and that warrant criminalization of the activities or events. Thus, most of these theorists believe that there is the need to punish the lawbreakers to set an example to other individuals who may have intentions of following their suit or engaging in legal activities.

Eyewitness identifications can ruin the lives of innocent people and cause them to live their life behind bars for a crime they didn’t commit. Eye witness testimonies can be the deciding factor for a criminal trial, but the the reliability of the eye witness testimonies is not always as accurate as we assume. Although eyewitness identifications can be very beneficial in solving a case, there have been countless instances where the eyewitness identification has been incorrect due to multiple psychological factors. Memory is the most important aspect to eyewitness identifications because it is the sole tool for remembering details of a specific event, but memory is very complex and has many different aspects that can cause for unreliable

Theories of punishment and legal procedures determine the fate of those that are sentenced in courts. There are multiple core theories of punishment used to impose a criminal sentence, these theories are as follows; Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation and retribution. Deterrence questions weather or not fear can discourage certain crimes. General Deterrence often uses swift and severe sentencing, often using certain accused criminals as examples to discourage would-be criminals. Specific Deterrence focuses on dissuading that specific offender from committing any further crimes.

Misdemeanor and violation cases are suspended from arraignment and legal matters are made and future court dates are scheduled. During court, the defendant may be found guilty and sentenced. Felony cases are presented to the grand jury. If the grand jury votes on an indictment, the defendant is then arraigned in Supreme Court (Appellate court). If the Supreme Court finds the defendant guilty the defendant is then sentenced.

Plea bargaining- This is also called plea acceptance. It is the process where a defendant may plead guilty to a lesser offence in return for a more serious offence being dropped. This has the advantage of trying to avoid a long and expensive trail that may or may not produce a conviction. By accepting a guilty plea to a lesser charge, time and money could get saved by both the defence and the prosecution.

The two models of criminal justice are control model and due process model. The control model is a model focuses on the community as a whole this model is known to the most important of them all because it focuses on moving the process the case as quickly as possible to bring to a close. Packer resembles his control model as “ assembly line justice” (Bohm & Haley, 2014). The control model allows the individual who is accused of committed a crime is able to work free with a plea bargain.

When reviewing the issues associated with the criminal justice system in the United States, wrongful convictions are becoming a serious one that society as a whole needs to be aware of. While there are a countless factors that can contribute to a wrongful conviction, there are five distinct ones that are the leading causes in wrongful convictions: the adversarial process, Eyewitness identification, misconduct and errors regarding forensic evidence, interrogations and confessions, and jailhouse snitches/informants. In relation to wrongful convictions, the adversarial system places more emphasis on the process rather than truth finding, meaning an individual can usually only appeal if there is an issue regarding the process; if someone is wrongfully

In McClesky v. Kemp the Supreme Court held that a study showing the death penalty in Georgia was imposed on black defendants disproportionately to white defendants failed to establish that any of the decision makers involved in the process acted with a discriminatory purpose. McClesky is a notable case in several respects. First, it highlighted the integrated nature of the criminal justice system and how each component functions to reach a certain result. Second, it emphasized the debate on which actors in the justice system have the most power and what role that power plays in reaching the result. Third, the case also underscored the importance on prosecutors keeping records of their decisions at varying stages of the criminal justice process.