Due Process v. Crime Control

Due Process Vs. Crime Control The “crime control” model is defined as a process that uses every effort to repress and reduce crime. It has emphasis on speed, efficiency, and finality. This gives it the ability to apprehend, try, and convict a high number of offenders.(Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2013, p. 13) Anyone familiar with “Judge Dredd” is also familiar with the crime control model. Due process is defined as a model where every effort must be made ensuring that decisions are made on reliable information, which shows extreme importance on the adversarial process (the legal system of the United States), the rights of the defendants, and the formal process for making decisions as defined by the U.S. Constitution. (Cole et al., 2013, p. 13) Neither model by itself will prevent crime in the United States, the answer lie in the proper proportioning of both models. The main fault of the crime control model is that it places too much emphasis on controlling crime. By doing this an individual’s constitutional rights are most often infringed upon. The due process model places its emphasis on the individual’s rights. Both the offender and the victim have constitutional rights and those rights should be protected. While the due process model is the basis for our Criminal Justice system it is not infallible. Many complain that is places too much emphasis on individual liberties and instead protects the offender and ignores the victim. (Perron, n.d., para. 3) The crime control module is most effective when used at the lowest level. It affords an individual officer the ability to use discretion when writing citations or arresting an offender. If the officer feels that arresting an individual is needed and instead gives a warning he/she is using discretion and helping to increase efficiency and productivity of the respective department. An elected official cannot lean heavily on the crime