Herbert Packer's Models of Criminal Justice - Crime Control vs Due Process

(Abstract taken from my own dissertation)

Packer’s models of criminal justice

It has been said that any given justice system will generally adopt one of ‘two conflicting value systems that [compete] for priority in the operation of the criminal process.’[1] Of course, these two systems are the Crime Control and Due Process models mentioned above; and whilst it is true to say that they stand for inherently different values and most people are inclined one way or the other, Packer has said that ‘anyone who supported one model to the complete exclusion of the other ‘would be rightly viewed as a fanatic’.[2]

The Crime Control model (CC) has been described as a conveyor belt by Sanders and Young. This is perhaps due to the nature of the system which moves quickly, knocking off various suspects one by one. Abolishing crime is CC’s primary concern, whilst human rights exist as a secondary or even tertiary consideration – this is one of its major criticisms, given that the Human Rights Act 1998 is now a fundamental part of our legal system.

Despite heavy critique, the model must be praised for its ability to address levels of crime with speed and efficiency; it has also been suggested that without such a harsh system, a ‘general disregard for the criminal law would develop and citizens would live in constant fear’.[3]

However, whilst some CC arguments are plausible, the inconsistency in practice cannot be justified so easily as the lack of thorough investigation puts innocent people at risk of conviction. Additionally, achieving such efficiency with resistance to challenge suggests methods such as interrogation may be freely endorsed; it is a worrying thought that we might be prioritising conviction rates above human autonomy.

It could be argued that ‘criminal justice agencies have been put under considerable performance pressure to reduce crime, to bring offenders to justice and to deal with juvenile offenders’,[4] but critics would submit that this goes little way to providing a defence as what we ‘save’ in monetary terms, we have to make up for in other ways – and this is usually at the expense of human dignity.

The Due Process model (DP) on the other hand, could be described as the antonym of crime control. It is based on procedure and sensitivity to each case – placing as much importance on the process as the end result. Sanders and Young have said that its aim is as much about protecting the factually innocent as convicting the factually guilty, which automatically denotes far fewer convictions.

The willingness of DP to sacrifice crime statistics in the name of preventing demoralising and oppressive behaviour is perhaps founded on the belief that we must teach by example and are failing to educate offenders when we too become law-breakers. “To seek to condemn and deter these people for their supposedly free-will decision to breach the criminal law smacks of cruel hypocrisy, particularly when there is a failure to provide for the individualised and humane rehabilitation of offenders.” [5]

There is a dire need to improve confidence in the criminal justice system[6], and those in favour of due process would submit that respect for individual rights is a step in the right direction. The Government in 2004 said that ‘improving the way that we treat the public, particularly victims and witnesses, is essential to enhancing levels of confidence.’[7] Nevertheless, without improved statistics the due process model will fail to be competent enough on its own, and this is perhaps where our crime control anomalies arise.

---

[1] Andrew Sanders and Richard Young, Criminal Justice (4^th edn OUP 2010) 21

[2] Andrew Sanders and Richard Young, Criminal Justice (4^th edn OUP 2010) 24

[3] Andrew Sanders and Richard Young, Criminal Justice (4^th edn OUP 2010) 22

[4] Daniel Gilling, Crime Control and Due Process in Confidence-Building Strategies, A Governmentality Perspective [2010] BJC

[5] Andrew Sanders and Richard Young, Criminal Justice (4^th edn OUP 2010) 23-4

[6] Daniel Gilling, Crime Control and Due Process in Confidence-Building Strategies, A Governmentality Perspective [2010] BJC

[7] HM Government, Cutting Crime, Delivering Justice: A Strategic Plan for Criminal Justice 2004-08, (2004)