During the 1960s, the field of criminal justice experienced significant growth, prompting an increased need to clarify the intricacies of the criminal justice system. In 1964, Herbert Packer published “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” which delved into the contrast between the due process model and the crime control model. Packer sought to better comprehend the dynamics of the criminal law process, emphasizing its importance in determining the appropriate or substantive use of criminal sanctions. These two models represent opposing value systems. The Crime Control Model prioritizes curtailing criminal behavior and conduct, whereas the Due Process Model emphasizes safeguarding individual rights and civil liberties, even for the accused (Packer, 1964).

Crime Control Model

The Crime Control Model is an administrative approach that prioritizes the speed and effectiveness of the arrest and prosecution process, with a strong emphasis on the strict enforcement of factual law (Christie, 2016). Advocates of this approach argue that without the rigorous enforcement of laws and subsequent punishment, societal order would crumble, leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable to victimization. Packer illustrates this model as a conveyor belt or assembly line: police routinely apprehend suspects, prosecutors are more likely to press charges against the suspect, and the courts swiftly determine the guilt of the defendant, followed by the sentencing of the convicted.

Proponents of the Crime Control Model maintain that law enforcement must possess extensive investigatory powers and that procedural safeguards should be limited, even if this results in the wrongful punishment of a few individuals (Christie, 2016). They contend that convicting a small number of innocent people is preferable to allowing more citizens to fall victim to preventable criminal acts.

Due Process Model

On the other hand, the Due Process Model functions more like an obstacle course rather than an assembly line. Unlike the Crime Control Model, the Due Process Model emphasizes the potential for error in the justice system due to the inherent fallibility of humans (Packer, 1964). Factors such as irrationality, emotional influence, poor observation, and susceptibility to both physical and psychological coercion can lead to false confessions and inaccurate evidence. Considering the likelihood of errors in the criminal justice system, procedural justice and defendant protections, such as the right to bail, the right to an attorney, and other Miranda rights, are critical mechanisms for establishing a fair criminal justice system.

Rehabilitation

The Rehabilitation perspective, also known as the medical model, emphasizes the belief that an offender can transform into a law-abiding citizen through appropriate interventions and programs (Pisciotta, 1994). Advocates of this perspective argue that the legal system should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders rather than punishment. Individualized treatments that focus on therapeutic interventions, including mental health services, substance abuse treatment, counseling, and anger management, as well as educational and skill development programs, should be central components of the criminal justice system process.

Another primary goal of rehabilitation is to decrease recidivism rates. With 96% of all inmates eventually reentering society (Hughes & Wilson, 2002) and national recidivism rates ranging from 35% to 75% (Durose et al., 2014), alternative sentencing and community-based programs should be used more frequently as the primary form of punishment (or as complementary measures to incarceration) in the criminal justice system. Such approaches have proven to be beneficial for reducing recidivism and facilitating successful reintegration into society (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007).

Restorative Justice

While often regarded as a newer perspective in the realm of criminal justice, the practice of Restorative Justice has ancient roots. Indigenous populations around the world have employed it for thousands of years. Restorative Justice encompasses various models, all of which suggest that the U.S. criminal justice system fails to adequately support the victim and disproportionately focuses on the offender (Tsui, 2014). Advocates of the Restorative Justice perspective argue that rather than solely concentrating on punishment or rehabilitation of the offender, a victim-centered approach should be adopted. This approach would initiate a process of repairing the harm caused by the criminal act, thereby enabling the victim and the community to heal, while holding the offender accountable and subsequently facilitating their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. While Restorative Justice has gained more support in the juvenile justice system, its adoption in the adult criminal justice system has been slower (Tsui, 2014).

Nonintervention

The Nonintervention perspective challenges the traditional approach, arguing that in certain situations the criminal justice system can cause more harm than good. This perspective highlights how both the imprisonment and conviction of individuals for nonviolent or low-level offenses can result in detrimental collateral consequences. These adverse consequences include barriers to employment, housing, and access to food assistance, along with restrictions to individual rights, such as voting or gun ownership. In addition, this approach emphasizes the importance of restricting state criminal intervention. Instead, it advocates for the employment of decriminalization measures and implementation of community-based rehabilitation or restorative programs, especially for low-level offenders, as alternative forms of punishment that move away from the formal legal system.

For example, sentencing convicts to prison for low-level crimes where they interact with other criminals, particularly those involved in violent and high-level crimes, can further increase the likelihood of future criminal behavior post-release. This is exemplified by the portrayal of the character George Jung in the 2001 movie Blow, which was based on Jung’s life. In the movie, Jung states, “Danbury wasn’t a prison; it was a crime school. I went in with a Bachelor of Marijuana, came out with a Doctorate of Cocaine” (Demme, 2001, 42:53). Additionally, depriving convicts of the positive influence of their families and other members of their support networks during their incarceration also contributes to a higher likelihood of recidivism (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018).

Equal Justice

The Equal Justice perspective focuses on ensuring fairness and consistency throughout the criminal justice system. One primary goal of this approach is to eliminate bias throughout the entire criminal justice process, particularly those pertaining to racial, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic disparities (Reiman & Leighton, 2020). The argument that the U.S. criminal justice system fails to provide fair and equal justice and fails to address the injustices of unequal treatment and bias in the U.S. criminal justice system has persisted throughout its history. Cesare Beccaria, whose writings significantly influenced the development of the U.S. criminal justice system, advocated for a more equitable justice system characterized by consistent forms of punishment, wherein wealth could not be used to evade the consequences of one’s actions (Harcourt, 2012).

Equal justice advocates frequently demand reforms that prioritize transparency and accountability for all individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Without these essential steps, issues stemming from racial and socioeconomic disparities will remain a challenge to the justice system, and disparities in arrest, sentencing, and incarceration will persist (Reiman & Leighton, 2020).

Attributions

1. Figure 1.7: Horticulture Programs by CoreCivic is released under CC BY-ND 2.0