Crime Control Vs. Due Process in the United States

Though the current system of the United States incorporates certain themes of the crime control model, I don't feel as though it must necessarily come at the expense of the principles of the due process model. With the proper balance, it seems possible to satisfy the core concerns of each; in essence, society as a whole should strive to simultaneously maximize proper punishment and minimize the wrongful imprisonment of the innocent. Rather than subscribe to a pure extreme which emphasizes the importance of one over the other, I feel that the best system is one that strives for the highest rates of efficiency and accuracy, while accepting outliers on either peripheral as a necessary evil.

To put this idea into motion, I believe it's easiest to use the due process model as a base. Its concerns, after all, would be dangerous ones to discard; a system which claims to exist to protect and preserve the freedom of the people should not claim those people as victims. Crime Control, taken to the extreme, runs the risk of infringing upon the basic liberties of private citizens.

However, a state which fails to consistently bring to justice individuals who infringe upon those liberties is guilty of the same crime. With this in mind, the best course of action is to whittle away at the impractical excess of the due process model-an excess which I believe to be born out of good moral faith but blind to its true function in a sociological setting.

I believe the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be the single greatest contribution of the due process model to modern criminal justice. The phrase, when used in a legal setting, is all-encompassing to the model's core beliefs, and provides each individual with an important advantage when it comes to proving his or her innocence. Reasonable doubt, however, is a term that must be clearly defined. We must not hesitate to convict an individual out of fear; we must accept the reality that new methods of investigation will forever be uncovering the missteps of past trials, but that we cannot allow it to paralyze our own good faith pursuit of justice. Even an imperfect system brings a measure of justice greater than no system at all.

This "lesser of two evils" approach, while practical, brings with it a new threat which cannot be ignored. It opens the door for probability to become the new certainty, and "good enough" the new perfect. These approximations, when expressed through administrative action, afford far too much power to the state and threatens that of the people. I believe that modern approaches to constitutionalism and conservatism in regards to government, however, have made a fatal error in defining this evil; liberty is not threatened by the presence or the power of the state, but rather ignorance towards the responsibility that accompanies it.

In this vein, I believe it's necessary to discard the notion that all cases must be looked upon through an identical lens. Specifically, I believe in stratification of potential punishment based not only upon the crime in question, but also the reliability or subjective nature of available evidence. For instance, in a case based entirely upon circumstantial evidence, a capital sentence might be completely removed from the pool of potential verdicts. In this way, it may be possible to preserve the integrity of a trial without expanding the scope of "reasonable doubt" or allowing the guilty to walk free.

Admittedly, this concept still presents the problem of wrongful imprisonment. However, it must be recognized that any prison sentence is far more reversible than capital punishment, and a wrongful probationary sentence is less unjust than a prison sentence in the case of less severe crimes. Releasing an individual retroactively proven innocent does not account for time lost, but it significantly limits the reach of injustice born from wrongful conviction. What's more, the ability to partially correct our missteps, coupled with responsible yet vigorous pursuit of criminal justice, provides us with a defense of liberty from both the state and the criminal unparalleled by either model taken in its most extreme form.