Crime Control vs. Due Process and Discretion
Today, there are two main competing models of justice, the Due Process Model, and the Crime Control Method. The Due Process Model (DPM) is known as obstacle course justice with an ideology that relies on the formal structure of the law and legal guilt. The DPM’s primary goals are to protect the due process rights of the accused and limiting the powers of the state. It runs completely with an underlying assumption of innocence, making it not so effective at all times. The Crime Control Method (CCM), on the other hand is known as assembly line justice. It has an ideology that centers on efficiency and effectiveness of the system and factual guilt. The CCM’s primary goals are to protect society from crime and to control the behavior of the community. This process uses and informal fact finding process through the police and prosecutors. Also contrary to the DPM the CCM operates under a presumption of guilt. The CCM of justice is focused on detaining the accused and securing convictions, making it very effective in preventing crime however somehow you have to step on some toes. These two models and methods occur all the time in the criminal justice system we see today, and there is much controversy behind which process should dominate. In 1984 Sherman and Berk published their overall case study on “The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault”. This study supported a more CCM ideology of justice. However in 1988 Binder and Meeker published an article critiquing the methods and conclusions of the original study, offering a counterpoint.
Sherman and Berk’s “The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault” is the primary source for the Minneapolis Experiment. The experiment was groundbreaking in the world of criminology. The study presented results that supported desires for an effective and tough alternative to law enforcements role in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document