Week 5

This week we looked at Packer's 'due process' and 'crime control' models, in what was the most theoretically-oriented & probably the most demanding week of the unit so far.

The best way to think about these two models of the CJS is probably to start from those two images, the "conveyor belt" and the "obstacle course".

According to the 'crime control' model, the CJS needs to process a lot of offenders in order to keep society safe and orderly; the police can be trusted to identify the right people most of the time; and the system should operate as far as possible like a 'conveyor belt' from the moment that a suspect is arrested. This is the meaning of the 'presumption of guilt': in practice, everyone who is in the system is presumed to be equally guilty (in reality), because treating them as innocent would be far too demanding and time-consuming.

According to the 'due process' model, on the other hand, the CJS can do a lot of harm to the people it 'processes'; the police can't be trusted to get it right every time; so the system should operate as far a possible like an 'obstacle course', in which the suspect is only convicted once every piece of contradictory evidence has been eliminated and every weakness in the case has been rectified. The 'presumption of innocence' says that everyone who is in the system is innocent (in law), and should be treated as such, until they have been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Don't try to reconcile these models with each other: they're meant to be polar opposites! However, it is true that if you push either one of these models to extremes you get something grotesque and unreal, like a court which sits for decades without deciding anything or a system for maintaining order by means of random execution. The question is always which way to push the system: do we want a bit more 'due process' (e.g. by letting more suspects opt for a jury trial) or a bit more 'efficiency' (e.g. by letting the police hold suspects for longer)? There are costs and benefits either way. (We may also want a bit more Doctor Who. Or that may just be me.)

Finally, one important point about the difference between the two mindsets is that the 'due process' model is characterised by scepticism about how much good the CJS can do. Looking back at the lecture on statistics, a 'due process' advocate would point to the very similar trends in the crime rate across many different Western nations and say that changes to criminal justice policy in Britain haven't made much difference to crime. That being the case, they might argue, it's a good idea to design the system in such a way that it does as little harm as possible, e.g. by locking up innocent people.

How do you think an 'efficiency' advocate would answer this argument? One possible counter-argument would be that the CJS isn't just about the actual level of crime - it's also there to deal with fear of crime, and with the widespread public anxieties about crime, terrorism, anti-social behaviour and so on. This brings us back to the 'Durkheimian' view of criminal justice - the CJS should respond to public fears and anxieties, by being seen to do something about the things society finds repugnant.

What do you think?

No classes or lectures next week, which will leave you free to hit the Employability Fair on Monday and Tuesday. I'm not running my standard office hours either, but I'm contactable by email any time - if you want to meet up, drop me a line on p.j.edwards at em em yoo dot ac dot uk.