Throughout this document an analysis will be provided that displays similarities and differences between the Due process of law and crime control model. In addition, a discussion of how each model has impacted and shaped the criminal procedure policies here in the United States. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution will be will be evaluated for the purposes of providing landmark cases that assisted with the shaping of the criminal justice system.
Both models disallow law enforcement officers to apply personal beliefs, bias, prejudice, and discrimination to situations. One main difference between the two models is the crime control model assumes that a suspect is guilty before his or her day in court, whereas the Due process of law presumes one to be innocent until proven guilty. In addition, the crime control model attempts to move individuals through the system like a “conveyor belt” and avoids using plea bargains and appeals if at all possible. This conveyor belt ideology alleviates court congestion, therefore allowing the courts to hear and try more criminal cases. Society perceives this as a major benefit as it removes and punishes a great number of wrongdoers in a timely manner. The Due process of law is considered by those opposed of the model to be an annoying obstacle that slows down prosecution as a result of providing the guilty with unnecessary protections. Those in favor of the Due process of Law consider the model a risk reducer of mistakes as the model strives not to punish the innocent by preventing and eliminating, corruption and inaccuracy’s to every point possible (Misha, 2005).
The United States has witnessed eras in history in which each model dominated the criminal justice system. For instance, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments throughout history have been shaped as a result of Supreme Court rulings on major criminal cases. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution offers a variety of important protections. The Fourth Amendment guarantees all individuals the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Law enforcement officers must establish probable cause prior to obtaining a warrant to search and seize or arrest. The Supreme Court ruled in County of Riverside v. McLaughin (1991) that detaining an individual longer than 48 hours after being arrested without probable cause is a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment Rights (Cornell University Law School, 2010).
Another landmark case Mapp v. Ohio (1961) had a major impact with the shaping of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court upheld the exclusionary rule making any illegally obtained evidence and subsequent evidence thereafter inadmissible in trial for state cases. Prior to Mapp v. Ohio the exclusionary rule only applied to federal cases. The Fourth Amendment was adopted as a result of an abuse of police power when obtaining a “writ of assistance” a type of search warrant that existed during the American Revolution. Law enforcement officers today when obtaining a search and seizure or arrest warrant must contact a judge or magistrate and include the location, items to be seized, the suspect’s information, and evidence that supports probable cause exists.
The Fifth Amendment is one of the most important protections offered to all individuals in the United States. The Fifth Amendment is the only Amendment in which law enforcement officers are forced to inform-educate a suspect of certain guaranteed Constitutional protections. Law enforcement officers must inform a suspect before a custodial interrogation takes place that he or she has the right to remain silent. This in return, prevents one from providing law enforcement officers with self-incriminating evidence, evidence that will be used against the suspect later in court (Mc Bride, 2007).
Moreover, law enforcement officers must inform the suspect he or she has a right to have legal representation present during an interrogation and in the event a lawyer cannot be afforded as a result of financial hardship the state will provide free legal counsel for the defendant. The Fifth Amendment further protects one from being tried for the same crime twice “double jeopardy” and guarantees the protections of the Due Process of Law. A leading case that had a major impact on the criminal justice system was Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged for kidnapping, robbery, and rape but was not informed of his Constitutional Rights prior to custodial interrogation. On appeals the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the evidence obtained during the interrogation was inadmissible as a result of the police not informing Miranda of his right to have counsel present and his right to remain silent (Mc Bride, 2007).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, the right to be tried by a jury, the right to be informed of the charges brought forth against the suspect by the state, the right to cross-examine all witnesses, the right of legal representation, and the right to compel witnesses on one’s behalf. A landmark case, such as Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) was established when a Florida Court refused legal representation to Mr. Gideon for breaking and entering. The Florida Court stated free counsel only applied to indigent defendants on capital cases. Mr. Gideon was convicted by a member of his peers to serve five years in a state prison. On appeals the U.S. Supreme court found the Florida state court ruling to be unconstitutional and said all individuals have the right to a fair trial by representation of legal counsel. The Supreme Court went on to say a court appointed attorney is a guaranteed protection by the Sixth Amendment and was applicable to the states through the Due Process and Fourteenth Amendment (Oyez, 2010).
The Sixth Amendments right to a speedy trial involved a case known as Smith v. Hooey (1969). The defendant had been incarcerated in a federal prison for seven years. On appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court the defendant claimed the state of Texas violated his Sixth Amendment Right to speedy as a result of not moving forward with the prosecution and the duration of time the defendant was incarcerated for. Upon appeal the Supreme Court agreed with the defendant and dropped the charges due to the states lack of attempted efforts with prosecuting the case (Revolutionary War, 2009).
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution applies to all individual’s, regardless of state laws and procedures. This protection can be seen as a promise by the United States by treating all individuals equally. The Fourteenth Amendment further provides equal rights to all individuals but not equal protections. These rights apply to all states but not the federal government. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) individuals were only protected from the federal government, but with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment numerous protections were developed and implemented, some of which concerned abridgements from state political leaders and governments. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees that no state shall deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property without the Due Process of Law (Wikipedia, 2010).
After carefully evaluating the Due Process of Law and Crime control models one can clearly see how each model has contributed and benefited individuals, society, and the criminal justice system. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments are considered extremely valuable as each provides individuals from encountering unfair trials. As of 2003 over 300 million individuals resided here in the United States, 100 million of which are of minority status. Numerous minorities are unfamiliar with American law and police procedures. With this said, a guaranteed protection created by the forefathers is a must. Whether one is opposed or in favor of a model, the fact of the matter is basic laws govern all states and the federal government and without a set of rules and regulations the United States would be more chaotic and injustices would occur frequently.
References
Cornell University Law School. (2010). Supreme Court: County of Riverside v. McLaughlin. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1817.ZO.html
Mc Bride, A. (2007). The Supreme Court: Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
Misha. (2005). News: Analysis of the Crime Control and Due Process Models. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/14223/analysis_of_the_crime_control_and_due.html?cat=37
Oyez. (2010). U.S. Supreme Court Media: Gideon v. Wainwright. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/
Revolutionary War. (2009). Sixth Amendment Court cases: Speedy Trial Clause. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/sixth-amendment-court-cases-speedy-trial-clause.html
University of Phoenix. (2010). Week one overview. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from University of Phoenix, Week One, rEsource. CJA353-Interdisciplanry Capstone Course Website.
Wikipedia. (2010). Equal Protection Clause. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
