Herbert Packer launched his Due Process and Crime Control models in 1964. Crime Control is the main focus and Packer’s creation of this model.

The crime-control model is based on public safety and maintaining order in society by having a system that can effectively suppress and control crime. The model’s fast apprehending of criminals and their conviction is one of its most recognizable features.

According to the crime control models, a person’s guilt is presumed until proven otherwise. Packer describes the model as prioritizing convictions and not waiting for the court to decide. Packer describes this model as prioritising the convictions of individuals who have committed a crime and to not wait for the courts to decide.

In order to reduce criminal activities, the crime-control approach believes the criminal justice system must be proven to be effective.

The crime-control model is used primarily when promoting policies that will make the criminal justice system more strict, expand police powers, change sentencing, or create the “three strike rule”.

The model is based on the belief that police power should be increased to allow for easier investigation of crimes, to search people and to seize evidence. The police’s effectiveness should be increased by eliminating legal technicalities. Statements made by a defendant or suspect should be admissible as long as they are not considered false because of coercion. This would allow any evidence to be legally admissible in court and prevent someone from being arrested who isn’t guilty.

It has the advantage of apprehending the guilty and punishing them. This model also has the benefit of minimising the harm done to society.

Roach (1999), Duff (1998), both concluded, that if crime control is used as intended, the prosecutor will withdraw charges and criminals may plead guilty.

Klein (2006) studied the crime control system and found that it had a reliable screening procedure for suspects. As a result, many criminals charged under the model are sentenced to prison. Klein is in favor of the model, even though there’s room for improvement. “In this model the criminal justice system is viewed as a screening operation in which every successive step – arrest, pre-arrest investigation and investigation post-arrest – is followed by a series routine operations that are judged on their ability to successfully conclude a case.

The U.S. Congress has passed new laws to enhance the punishments for certain crimes. Money laundering, carjackings and violent crimes are now subject to federal criminal penalties. These laws emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. This idea worked, as the more serious the offense the harsher your sentence. The system would punish the individual no matter what the crime was. Packer (Packer) believes that punishments can be used to deter crime. However, they are not always effective and could make matters worse if they stigmatize offenders and produce defiance.

The police have full control due to the rapidity of the apprehending of individuals and the sentencing of those who are found guilty. There is no presumption against guilt. The model prioritizes factual guilt above legal guilt. It is a crime-control strategy that would fail if an individual was let go.

The criminal justice process does not waste time by delaying weak cases. The model has both advantages and limitations. This is both an advantage and a limitation of the model. However, there is an added benefit. Closing the cases which do not provide any information allows money, resources and time to be saved. This can then be spent more effectively on the cases which show potential in apprehending a person who is guilty.

Choongh, (1998) revealed information regarding Packer’s due process and crime control models. It is possible that a crime control system based on finality and efficiency can do more harm than good. The investigation will be more likely to be incomplete and rushed if it moves too quickly.

Michael King, for instance (1981), argues that the criminal system would be more effective if it had more models. King (1981), who analysed the criminal system and published six models to correspond with Packer’s theory. The theory has since been developed, and it is concluded that Packer (1968’s) models are overly simplistic. The models King presents are the following; crime control, due-process, bureaucratic, medical and power models. King does not disagree with Packers but he feels that these models must be used to make the criminal law system effective. For example, the medical model is centered on rehabilitation. This means that it focuses primarily on criminals who require care and attention for their criminal actions.

This is vital in identifying and reducing crime.

King (1981) shows how Packer’s theories may be lacking in depth, too narrow-minded and lack credibility when implemented. King’s adaptation of Packer’s theories has brought to light the problems in Packer’s theory and the criminal systems models need to be more carefully considered.

This model has a number of disadvantages, including the fact that it allows police to have more authority. They can be biased and therefore treat different criminals harsher. The harshness of the criminal justice system prevents individuals from defending themselves in court. They are arrested by the police because they think they’re guilty and then the criminal justice process continues.

Many people support the idea that convicted individuals should not be able to defend themselves. Many people support the idea that plea bargains should not be allowed. They think they are bad because they allow defendants to escape conviction for crimes. LaWall (2001), claims that plea bargains create an impression that “the whole credibility of the justice system has been corrupted”. It leads to the perception that the criminal justice system is corrupted.

“Chronic crowding in juvenile justice centers is a common problem, but there is no evidence that simply transferring overcrowding from juvenile facilities to overcrowded adult courts or adult prisons would solve the problem.” (Neubauer & Fradella 2010. p. 519) They also think that juveniles need to take responsibility for their own actions, as the crime control system has focused mainly on adult convictions. If there are too many juveniles in the justice system, they believe more should be sent to adult court. The transfer will help ease the problem.

This model of justice supports the death punishment as well. It is believed that it is a good long-term solution, and also works with catching those guilty and providing mandatory sentencing. The death penalty would deter people from committing murder because they would know the outcome. According to the crime control model, the death penality should remain in place because it’s morally right to kill someone after they’ve already murdered another.

Scmalleger, 1999, argues that due process can combine the best of both models and avoid their flaws and dangers. Scmalleger has a good idea on how to control crime. Scmalleger combines the two models to provide a balanced approach. This is because it protects the individual rights that have been fought over in America, while also protecting society.

Henham’s (1998) information on a rights approach was based on his belief that the crime-control and due process models are not sufficient when sentencing criminals in terms of their rights. The crime-control model is designed to suppress criminal activity in order to maintain low rates of crime. A rights based approach would propose propositions which have more moral than empirical validity.

Schrieber Renneberg Macracker (2009) as well Tucker Hasselt Russell (2007) both wrote that professionals lack the training to handle mentally ill patients whether they’re criminals. It is important to provide rehabilitation to criminals with mental disorders, which the crime-control model does not encourage.

It is necessary to examine crime control both as a whole and as a separate concept in order to fully understand it. In terms of law, however, most enforcement agencies prefer the crime-control model. Due to the fact that a suspect’s arrest is treated as if he has been found guilty.

The crime-control model has been praised for its ability to restore order to society through a high arrest rate and low delinquency. It is important to be able to make decisions quickly in certain cases. While it’s ideal not making extreme decisions in a hurry, some agencies prefer to have a quick and wrong decision.

Overall, crime control is a model that has strengths and weaknesses. It affects both the criminal system and the society. The criminal justice system is designed to protect the public. Its focus is on speedy prosecutions, police investigations and severe consequences for criminals. This system has an edge over the due procedure model, because the goal of the latter is to minimize mistakes that may place innocent people in prison.