Criminology

There have been a lot of research and studies on the best way to ensure that the criminal justice system is fair, just, effective and efficient. The oldest models of criminal justice system have been the crime control model and the due process model, both developed by Packer. These models work towards the achievement of various goals. All of them are designed for effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of justice. They offer direction to review the real or positive working of the criminal justice (Bator, 1963). They can also offer a normative direction to what principles are supposed to control the criminal process. The models can also be looked at philosophies and dialogues that surround the criminal process. The most effective and efficient models, especially the crime control and the due process have become highly employed in the current criminal justice system. Packers models are not the only models used in criminal justice. There are other models developed, that are more current than those of packer (Roach, 1999). These models are not the focus of the paper and will therefore not be discussed. The paper seeks to prove that the crime control model of Hebert Packer is the most preferable model in the current criminal justice system.

Background information 
The most triumphant efforts to come up with models of criminal justice were accomplished by Hebert Packer. His models opened doors for more successful models in the latter days. Many observers have tried to replace or add to the models, but none of them has enjoyed his kind of success and long life of his models. All the other models draw from the great work of Hebert Packer. The model that this paper focuses on is the crime control model as the most preferable in the current criminal justice system (Roach, 1999).

There are various assertions that are the basic concerns in the model. One of them is that the most crucial purpose of the justice system is to repress crime in the society. This is due to the fact that law and order are crucial conditions in a free society. The other assertion is that the justice system should focus on defending the rights of the victims rather than those of the defendant. This means that under this model, the rights of the defendant are not so much emphasised. The third assertion is that the authority of the police should be extended to ensure effective investigation, arresting, searching, seizing and convicting. The fourth one is that the legal procedures that handcuff the law enforcement officers should be gotten rid of. The other assertion is that the criminal system should work similarly to an assembly-line conveyor belt. This way, it will be possible to move cases along ended to their disposition. The sixth assertion is that in case a law enforcement officer arrests and a criminal charges are made by the prosecutor, the arrested person should be assumed guilty (Bator, 1963). This is due to the fact that fact-finding of the law enforcement official and the prosecutor is basically dependable. The final assertion is that the primary goal of the justice system ought to be the discovery of the truth or the establishment of guilt of the charged person based on evidence and facts. These model stresses on the need to control crime without major concern on the rights of an individual. The model stresses on the responsibility of the government to offer protection to the society. This is the main concern of any criminal justice system (Peak, 2001).

The crime control model as a system preferable to the current system
The crime control model focuses on the legislature as its authenticating authority rather than the court. The model agrees with the concentrated dependence that the legislature places on the criminal sanction. This is presumed to be a constructive guarantor of social freedom. This model is superior for it focuses on upholding of the public order. This is its primary concern and it is necessary for a free society. Social order is a dream of every society. The model is used for two major purposes. It is used for a liberal purpose, which is to protect persons and their property from damage or harm. The other purpose is a conservative one that seeks to promote order and societal stability. These can also be thought of as the primary purposes of the current criminal justice system (Roach, 1999).

This model holds that effective and efficient investigations by law enforcement officials and prosecutors could be helpful in controlling crime. Based on the fact that law enforcement resources are limited, it is important that the system be centred on speed and conclusiveness. This will ensure efficiency and effectiveness where the available resources will be economically utilised to achieve the best results. This can take place where the law enforcement officials and the prosecutors are allowed to screen out those who are not guilty and acquire sufficient evidence for the prosecution of the guilty. The strength of this model is that most of the investigation is carried out by the law enforcement officers on the streets and crime scenes, instead of the legal representatives and the judges in the court rooms. This will ensure that sufficient and first hand evidence is accessible to be presented in the court for judgement. The other advantage of this investigation is that less time is taken to gather evidence and there is limiting of the opportunities to destroy or conceal evidence (Bronitt, 2008).

The main concern of the law enforcement officers as well as the public is factual guilt.  This is based on the idea that the charged person probably committed the said crime. The fact-finding phase under the model is to offer factual evidence to prove factual guilt or factual innocent. However, there is no overly concern with the legal guilt (Cochrane, Melville  Marsh, 2004). This is where it is possible to prove without doubt through presentation of evidence and considerations of the rights and defences if the charged person. The rights of the accused are not of major concern. Where the rights and defences of the accused person are put as the basic element in judgement, it is possible to crown the judgement, denying the victim justice. It is from this point of view that the crime control model can be said to be fair and the most effective in providing justice to the victim (Roach, 1999).

Where the police are given more power to apprehend and question, it is the possible to gather evidence fast. Under this model, the law enforcement officers are offered the investigative power. This means that the police can interrogate a suspect and has the authority to apprehend a person for questioning. This is considered the fastest method of establishing if the person arrested is factually guilty. The police are put in a position to establish the factual innocence or guilt of the suspect before a charge is filed by the prosecutor. The advantage is not only lessened time, but also the fat that the process is simplified (Roach, 1999).

The person held for questioning are not allowed the services of a legal representative. This is because this is viewed as a process that will slow down the process. It is also considered a service that is only for the benefit of the guilty. Legal representatives have sufficient knowledge of law and their advice to the accused comes as a stumbling block to the criminal process. They will advice guilty people to plead not guilty and take a lengthy procedure trying to prove the innocence of a person who is guilty (Cochrane, Melville  Marsh, 2004). The legal representatives will also advice the accused not to say anything during interrogations. The lawyer is not entirely removed from the system. He or she is only eliminated from interrogations to ensure that the process is speedy and that reliable information is obtained from the accused. The place of the legal representative remains in the court, where he will be representing the accused in the trial process. Under this model, everyone has his or her well laid role and the part to play in the justice process. This makes the process more effective (Bronitt, 2008).

The police are given the power under this model to conduct thorough searches. This is due to the fact that only the factually guilty have evidence to hide. Given the opportunity, factually guilty will hide or destroy the information that is likely to prove their factual guilt. This also ensures timely search and seizure, providing reliable evidence (Bronitt, 2008). Unlawfully seized proof should be presented to the court during trial. This means that evidence is evidence regardless of the way that the law enforcement officers obtain it. This is proper because, most of the time where the police follow legal procedures in obtaining evidence, chances are that the evidence is either hidden or destroyed before they get to it. While coerced confessions are not acceptable, drugs, arms and stolen goods are important in truth revelation regardless of the way that the law enforcers use to obtain them. This is an effective and efficient way of gathering sufficient evidence to prove factual guilt (Roach, 1999).

The court proceedings are not central under the crime control model. Central to the model is the administrative fact-finding phase. This is where the accused in proven factually guilty or innocent. The prosecutor not the judge is the one who is better suited in evaluating the evidence presented by the enforcement officers. The prosecutor is the one who decides if the accused should be held for a determination of whether he or she is guilty. Prosecutors, just like the law enforcement officers, are trusted to avoid wasting the restricted resources as well as time on those who are not guilty as charged. This is another way of providing not only effectiveness in the system, but also efficiency (Bronitt, 2008).

Detection of the accused pending the trial is a rule. This is carried out for three main purposes. The first one is ensuring that the accused will not fail to appear for trial. Having a person in custody will ensure that they appear for trial on the appointed day and time. It will also save the court a lot of summons to appear in court. It is thus efficient and saves time when the accused is kept where he or she can appear immediately when called upon to. The other rationale behind the rule is prevention of further crime. When a guilty person is detained pending the trial his chances of repeating the crime are reduced to zero. This is unlike the models that claim it is the right of the accused to be released on bail pending the trial. These are models that let criminals loose providing them loopholes to commit other crimes. The last purpose is that the detention may give the accused time to plead guilty before at the first chance. When a person is detained pending the trial, it is possible for interrogations to continue and chances are that the accused may plead guilty lessening the process and saving on time and resources. From this point of view, it is in the interest of all the players that a case is ended without trial where it is proven without a shadow of doubt that the accused is factually guilt (Roach, 1999).

Under the model, the judges are supposed to accept guilt pleas. This should be done without inquiring for factual correctness of the supplication or if the defendant has any defences. The motivating factor here for the defendant is what is referred to as sentencing discount. This is given to the accused for saving the justice system resources by accepting guilt in the first opportunity. There are some of the systems where the trial has to continue, as a rule, whether the defendant pleads guilty or not. This is unnecessary waste of resources and time and it is what the crime control model seeks to eliminate. There is no sense in continuing a trial where the accused accepts that he or she is guilty and is ready to face the consequences of his or her crime  (Cochrane, Melville  Marsh, 2004).     
        
The crime control model does not allow for the guilty to go unpunished just because a law enforcement officer has committed a mistake. Where a law enforcement officer commits a crime, he or she faces the consequences, but the case of the suspect is not terminated. There is fairness because the law enforcement officer who goes against the law is punished and the case against the accused is continued. The justice system under this model is a two-edged sword, dealing with whoever goes against the law, regardless of the part he or she plays in the justice system (Bronitt, 2008).                                                       
Due to the fact that the law enforcement officers and the prosecutors are able to thoroughly screen out the factual innocence of the suspect, the trial judges and the juries are not faced by the burden of convicting an innocent person. The model puts the burden of proving factual innocence of guilt on the law enforcement officers and the prosecutors, shielding the trial judges and the jurors who are not involved in investigation process. Where the law enforcement and the prosecutors play their parts effectively, the justice process is carried out smoothly and for the benefit of all the players (Peak, 2001).       

Weaknesses of the model
Despite the fact that the model is more preferable for the current criminal system, it is not without some flaws. The major limitation of interrogation under this model is access to reliable statement from the accused. In police questioning there is likelihood of coerced confession. Police are known to use force (Cochrane, Melville  Marsh, 2004). It is possible in police questioning to use force to obtain a confession. Out of fear, the suspect can confess to a crime that he knows nothing about, thus getting an unreliable confession. It is common to dismiss this model on the basis of the fact that it is a thuggish model that encourages police brutality. The criminal process of a factually guilty person is not an appropriate and direct procedure for dealing with law enforcement officials and prosecutors misconduct. Nevertheless, the positive side of it is that misconduct from the law enforcement officers is dealt with accordingly (Cochrane, Melville  Marsh, 2004). Where a case of misconduct is identified, it can be handled either as a civil or even criminal case. This is what puts the law enforcement officers on the lookout and guides them through proper conduct during investigations. This follows the idea of Dicey that the rule of law is founded on the capacity to enforce the ordinary law on the law enforcement officers. Where there is likelihood that a law enforcement officer will face charges for misconduct or brutality, they will be able to carry out their responsibility accountably (Roach, 1999).

Evaluation of the model against the criminal justice system
The criminal justice system is the arrangement of processes and institutions that are aimed at social order, crime prevention and punishment for those who infringe regulations with punishment and rehabilitative processes. There are three primary goals of the criminal justice system. The first goal is ensuring that justice is carried out. Justice ensured under the crime control model by ensuring that thorough investigations and interrogations are carried out to ensure that those who are factually innocent are let free and those who are factually guilty faces the kind of punishment that they deserve (Peak, 2001). The second one is controlling crime in the society. By ensuring that the guilty are apprehended and punished in a way that they deserve, it is possible to control crime in the society. The other way of controlling crime under the crime control model, is through pre-trial detention. This ensures that there is no chance for criminals to go out and further their damage on the society (Roach, 1999). Crime prevention is basically the main goal under the model.  The final goal is prevention of crime. Crime prevention under the model is ensured by making sure that the police and the prosecutors all carry out their duty effectively. The criminal justice system is made up of interdependent subsystems. The subsystems are supposed to exchange bargains for instance, plea bargains. The system is characterised by good judgment, resource dependence, sequential tasks, and filtering. All these are characteristics evident in the crime control model (Bronitt, 2008). From the paper, it is clear that the crime control model operates within the goals of the criminal justice system and that it is without doubt the most preferable model for the current criminal justice system.