Comparing The Conflict And Consensus Models Of The Criminal Justice System

There are three significant issues concerning law enforcement, namely enacting the law, police discretion, and assessment of criminal behavior. Different entities create and enact laws that are specific for the societies those laws represent.

The criminal justice system consists of models and theories that often contradict one another. Of these models are the crime control model, the due process, model, the consensus model and the conflict model. In this paper these models are evaluated and defined, as well as each entity in the criminal justice systems role within each model. Policing, corrections and the court system all subscribe to each model in some way and in a hurried manner in cases that dictate such a response. As described by Erik Luna in the Models of Criminal Procedure, the following statement summarizes the aforementioned most appropriately.

To begin with, criminal justice is a system that is designed to maintain social control, which means it is a necessary aspect of every society since “Laws are the conditions under which independent and isolated men united to form a society” (Beccaria, 1764: 16). In order words, crime control deals with the methods that are taken by a society to reduce its crime. As a matter of fact, there are various crime control strategies from community policing to risk assessments. In addition to the different tactics for controlling crime, there are several theories that not only attempt to explain the causes of crime, but also outline different ways to handle offenders; for example, deterrence, rehabilitation, and even retribution.

The consensus model of criminal justice suggests that society strives to maintain a harmonious social order, and social institutions cement social bonds that counteract negative criminal tendencies. "The foundation of consensus perspective is the assumption that societies have an inherent tendency to maintain themselves in a state of relative equilibrium through the mutually and supportive interaction of their principal institutions. Consensus theory is a sociological perspective in which social order and stability and social regulation forms the base of emphasis" (Consensus perspective, 2011, Sociology Index). Societies are interdependent, and every element of society performs some essential function. The interdependent nature of all elements of a society creates a consensus of values and determines what should be required of citizens. By nature, societies are seen as tending towards consensus, and finding an equilibrium of common values is seen as beneficial for society (Sociology perspectives: The order and the conflict model, 2009, Minority Studies). Consensus theorists tend to see minority or dissident groups as troubling, given that they can upset the social structure and cause unrest. The goal of the criminal justice system is to enable people to fit into social institutions.

Criminologists have long tried to fight crime and they have developed many theories along the way as tools to help them understand criminals. In the process of doing so, criminologist have realized that in order to really understand why criminals are criminals, they had to first understand the interrelationship between the law and society. A clear and thorough understanding of how they relatively connect with criminal behavior is necessary. Therefore, they then created three analytical perspectives which would help them tie the dots between social order and law, the consensus, the pluralist and the conflict perspectives. Each provides a significantly different view of society as relative to the law. However, while they all aim to the same

The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).

The problems surrounding the criminal justice system range from a variety of issues in different areas of the system. But i believe they are all connected back to a societal problem, that has to do with a outdated philosophical notion “redemptive violence”. I will break down each aspect, which i find most troubling. I will cover problems between policing and peacekeeping, corrections options, and the issue of redemptive violence which is a major issue in the philosophy of the criminal justice system. These issues represent problems that have always been key topics when discussing problems of ethics in criminal justice. Policing and Peacekeeping are roles that have long been debated in usefulness to stopping crime. Corrections comes with the reality of incarceration having little chance of success but more likely a higher rate of recidivism. I well also touch on briefly the issues of attorney discretion. While the issue of redemptive violence ties them all in, As i well show this philosophy is the “root of all evil” in the issues facing the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system in the United States has traditionally operated under two fundamentally different theories. One theory is the Crime Control Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that criminals should be aggressively pursued and crimes aggressively punished. The other theory is the Due Process Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that the rights of the accused need to be carefully protected in any criminal justice investigation. (Levy, 1999)

The Conflict model, sometimes called the “system conflict theory” or non-system perspective, provides another approach to the study of Criminology and Criminal Justice. The studies of this model, focuses on the social inequalities of different groups. Criminologists believe that society and social order are based on the powerful and dominant groups. This model argues that all of the social components are designed to serve their own interests and that justice is a product of conflict, rather than cooperation. Meaning that the criminal justice system is expected to compete between each other in order to make justice in society, and that this is the most accurate way to deal with crime.

The contest of strength between the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model is similar to attempting to satisfy every person, each and every second and no one some of the time. Debates are good for both models, but for all growth on one side, there must be one on the opposing side as well. The Crime Control Model, prosecutor or the police, is not in favor for the Due Process Model, a person, to have more rights than they do. Each and every individual who is a United States citizen should know what his or her rights are.

Since the beginning of time, the United States’ Criminal Justice System (CJS) has been scrutinized and will continue to be. If significant changes were to occur within the CJS it could potentially take decades. Different persons, institutions, governments, and even departments within governments have different views; it is a natural occurrence. Thus, as with any subject matter, there are always controversies that cause disruption within society. Often, the controversies stem from the lack of understanding and the historical patterns of unsupported data.

The value basis that underpins the crime control model is founded on the suggestion that the despotism of criminal behavior is by a great extent the most essential function to be undertaken by the criminal process. The absolute let down by the law enforcement to curb and control criminal behavior is perceived as the principal raison d'être leading to a crash of public order and a broad ignorance of the legal control measures are likely to grow. Accordingly, the crime control model takes cognizance of the maximization of the number of wrong doers caught, stopped and dealt with by justice.

The criminal justice field faces the challenges of getting criminals off the streets, and prosecuting them, while using limited funds and manpower. Citizens expect results, and want to feel safe when they are in their own neighborhood. On the other hand, citizens in our democratic country expect people to be treated fairly, and feel the need to make sure that no innocent people are wrongly sent to jail. It is a balancing act of keeping the community safe on one hand, and on the other, making sure that no one’s rights are violated. It is like being told to do a job, but then having all these rules and obstacles you have to navigate around in order to do your job. The following paper is a study of the differences between due

of that crime has to be evaluated by the same society as well as the

American Criminal Justice System The criminal judicial system in America has two main models, the crime control model and the due process model. There has been several debates on which model is the most effective in combating crime in America. Crime control model emphasizes on crime reduction by increasing prosecution powers (Hung-En, 2006). On the other hand, the due process model of crime control aims at increasing the people’s rights and liberty and limiting governmental powers. Unlike the due process model, the crime control model believes in with an increase in governmental powers and reduction of individual freedom in order to mitigate crime in the society.