Criminology

Criminal procedure refers to the rules and laws that govern the administration of justice to people accused of criminal activities (Acker,  Brody, 2004). These regulations are applied to all crime suspects and defendants from the time of their arrests to the passing of judgment. Thus, these rules will govern the investigation of crimes, prosecution, adjudication and punishment of law offenders. As a result of applying these, suspected criminals will be saved the problem of having to undergo through a series of discriminative law applications. The application of the due process, which is a principle requiring that the government respects all the legal rights of individuals as dictated by the law, will protect these individuals from the state. Through due process, judges, instead of legislators, are mandated to pass rulings that ensure fairness and justice to be delivered to all citizens (Lippman, 2010).

On the other hand, crime control models are theories of criminal justice or principles governing the arrest of suspected criminals aimed at reducing crimes in the society. Police and prosecutors, based on the crime control models, are vested with more powers in the delivery of justice to the suspected criminals. The findings of the police warrant the arrest and treatment of suspected criminals as guilty till proven otherwise. Thus, suspected criminals are not guaranteed their liberty, under the crime control model, till they are proved otherwise in the law courts (Ferdico, Fradella,  Totten, 2009).

The application of the two models results in contrasting approaches that are aimed in averting crimes. However, due process and the crime control models have helped in the shaping of the federal laws through their impacts on the definition of the measures to be taken incase one is suspected of crime (Acker,  Brody, 2004). The passing of different Amendments, regarding criminal procedures, in the constitution of the federal government of US, has led to the protection of individual human rights against unnecessary arrests, and has helped in defining the limits of criminal activities and the necessary measures to be taken incase of violation. However, some controversy in the implementation of these laws has been evident. This has resulted from the contradiction found in the two criminal procedural models instituted by the federal government. For instance, the Fourth constitutional Amendment on criminal procedure, requires that the rights of individuals to security and against unwarranted searches and seizures should not be violated unless under extreme cases upon which search warrants are given by courts.

Under this Amendment, the due process is applicable but the crime control model is in jeopardy. This generates some controversy in the application of the two models and thus forcing some states to develop their own laws which may vary from state to state (Lippman, 2010).

The approach on crimes, as in the due process which champions the maintenance of justice in the society through the policing of the criminal justice system, is considered to hinder the process of justice by the crime control model. It is, however, essential to note that the due process works in the best interest of all the citizens whereas the crime control model violates some basic rights of the suspected perpetrators of crimes. The efficiency of the judicial system is improved by the adoption of the crime control model whereas the adoption of due process ensures that justice becomes a preserve for all citizens (Acker,  Brody, 2004).

Thus, the amalgamation of the two models in the court of laws has enabled the federal government in curbing the occurrence of crimes and the award of justice to both the suspected criminal and the defendants. The due process will avert injustices from being done on the suspected criminals whereas the crime control model will help in improving the speed in which justice will prevail to all parties. Consequently, in the US, arrests are only made when some has done or participated in some criminal activities (Ferdico, Fradella,  Totten, 2009).

The Fifth Amendment was made in reference to the banning of the compelled self-incrimination rule which had earlier been passed. Thus, this law governs the procedures of death penalty or multiple trials for same offenses that individual suspects may be subjected to. As a result, enough evidence should be provided to warrant the sentencing and punishment of crime culprits. The Fifth Amendment worked in protecting suspected criminals from testifying against themselves as a result of the presentation of stolen papers from their premises that may be of importance as evidence in the law courts (Ferdico, Fradella,  Totten, 2009). However, incase of a civic crime, the Fifth Amendment allows the crime suspect to testify against oneself. The development of this law was arrived after the consideration of the due process and the crime control models. The due process helped in the definition of this law through the prevention of unconstitutional searches in the suspects residence which may result in the finding of the factual evidence required for the prosecution. The seizure of materials from the suspects place of residence, which is legally defined as thisher property under the federal laws, is considered to amount to violation of the Fifth Amendment.

This is equated to self-incrimination and should not be allowed in the court of laws as evidence against the accused. However, under certain circumstances, upon which the accused is found or suspected to violate some civic rights, the evidence may be used in prosecution (Lippman, 2010). This was adopted following the provisions of crime control model.

The due process model has enabled the definition and passing of the Sixth Amendment which allows the accused to enjoy the right to speedy and public hearing. This can be done, under an impartial jury, in the district or State in which the crime was committed. This provision allows the accused to access all hisher rights while in custody. The eight amendment of the criminal procedure was made to allow the accused to enjoy their liberty without having the imposition of excessive fines or bail on them. This amendment also prevents the police and the judiciary from imposing unusual and cruel punishments on the suspected criminals (Lippman, 2010). This is a provision that is advocated for by the due process contrary to the crime control model which required that the accused be punished by the law. The criminal procedures practiced by the different States were slightly different and depended on the model adopted in that State. However, in the supreme courts, during the early times, the prosecutions were made while abiding by the above amendments. Following the controversies that resulted from the application of different models in the different States, the federal government instituted the Fourteenth Amendment which forbade states from depriving any person of life, property and liberty without the application of the due process (Lippman, 2010).

Thus, individual rights for the defendants were to be respected from the time of prosecution to the time of delivering the verdict on the crime committed. As a result, the fundamental rights of the defendants were to be protected by all the courts whereas the applications of the law in states were followed following the criminal procedures provided in that state (Acker,  Brody, 2004).  

Conclusion
The criminal procedure adopted in each state helps in the prosecution of the criminal defendants. In spite of the difference in the statutory processes applicable to the federal prosecutions and the states, the fundamental rights of individuals are protected in all the states. The due process and the crime control models have greatly helped in the constitutional amendment of the criminal procedures. This has been achieved despite the difference in the approaches that are employed in each model.