Analysis of Theoretical Models in Criminal Justice Systems

Desklib provides solved assignments and past papers to help students understand complex topics.

“Analyse How Theoretical Models of Criminal Justice Contribute To Our Understanding of the
Criminal Justice System”
The Contribution of Theoretical Models of Criminal Justice in Establishing the Understanding of
the Criminal Justice System

Table of Contents
Essay Question......................................................................................................................... 2
The Contribution of Theoretical Models of Criminal Justice in Establishing the Understanding
of the Criminal Justice System..................................................................................................3
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 3
Conclusion................................................................................................................................7
References................................................................................................................................9

Essay Question
“Analyse How Theoretical Models of Criminal Justice Contribute To Our Understanding of
the Criminal Justice System”

The Contribution of Theoretical Models of Criminal Justice in
Establishing the Understanding of the Criminal Justice System
Introduction
Criminal Justice System can be defined as a set of institutions both social and legal that are
responsible to enforce the criminal law based on a predefined framework of rules as well as
limitations (Schmalleger et al. 2014). In the UK, three different Criminal Justice System work
towards enforcing criminal law in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales
(Stenson and Sullivan, 2012). The England and Wales Criminal Justice System consists of
social and legal institutions like Police, Criminal Defence Services, Youth Justice, Courts,
Prosecutors, Prisons, Probation services, etc. (Stenson and Sullivan, 2012). The focus of the
criminal justice system is controlling the crime while making sure that justice is upheld. The
Theoretical models of criminal justice are devised to facilitate the delivery of the objectives
of the Criminal Justice System that includes apprehending the criminal or individual violating
the law; fairly adjudicating the apprehended individual; retribution for the crime; Deterring
them from further crime; rehabilitating the offender to make them suitable for public life
and restoration (King, 1981; Sanders et al. 2010). The frameworks or models of criminal
justice provide the theoretical view of the way a criminal justice system should theoretically
operate. Eight different Theoretical Models of Criminal Justice include Due Process, Crime
Control, Medical, Bureaucratic, Status Passage, Power, Justice, and Management Models
(King, 1981; Sanders et al. 2010). The Essay will explore and evaluate the contribution of
these Theoretical Criminal Justice Models in furnishing the understanding of the complex
Criminal Justice System (CJS).
The Due process model and the Crime control model were devised by Herbert Packer in
1968 (Feeley, 2017). These two models represent two different values present in the
criminal justice and remain constantly in competition contributing towards the disharmony
and conflict of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) (Feeley, 2017). The Due Process Model is
focused on the various principals concerning the rights of the defendant (Schmalleger,
2017). It establishes the legal principles like equality before the law; Right to a fair trial;
presumption of innocence. The Human Rights Act 1998 enforces the approach of Due

Process Model that focuses on the premise that only a guilty individual should be convicted
(Schmalleger, 2017). On the other hand, the Crime control Model focuses on controlling the
crime by way of prosecution and punishment. Crime control involves the prevention,
reduction, and restriction of crime by focusing on stringent punitive actions and speedy
adjudication (Schmalleger, 2017).
Michael King devised four models of Criminal Justice in 1981; these Criminal Justice Models
are the Medical Model, Bureaucratic Model, Status Passage Model, and Power Model (King,
1981; Vogler, 2017). King suggested that the Packers models of criminal justice were
insufficient to address the nuisances of criminal law and its enforcement. So, he devised the
above stated four models to address the areas left by Packers models of criminal justice
(King, 1981; Vogler, 2017). The Medical Model suggests a therapeutic approach as the
correctional treatment. It focuses on rehabilitating the criminal by diagnosing the root
causes that are responsible for their criminal behaviour and treating them like a medical
patient Medical Model (King, 1981; Vogler, 2017). The Bureaucratic Model is focussed on
delivering justice in a manner that’s cost-effective, efficient and swift. This is a pragmatic
approach that suggests that the rights of the defendant should be respected to a limited
level so that it doesn’t hamper the delivery of justice and thereby enhances the speed of
resolving the cases. The bureaucratic model focuses on managing the criminal and crimes in
a manner that enhances the swiftness of delivering justice and maintains independence
from political consideration and influences (King, 1981; Vogler, 2017). The Status Passage
Model suggests the approach that involves degrading and denunciating the criminal as a
way of deterring future crimes. It enforces the need for trial and subsequent punishment to
establish the importance of societal values that promotes abiding the law (King, 1981;
Vogler, 2017). The Power Model highlights the role of the dominant or elite groups/ classes
and state favouring them while delivering justice. It indicates that the role of elite and
influential is enforced by the criminal justice system hence the interest of these elite and
influential individuals/ groups influence the law and its enforcement (King, 1981; Vogler,
2017).
Justice model was developed out of different publication authored by different
academicians like the publications of Andrew von Hirsch in 1976; D Fogel in 1975; M Frankel
in 1973; and K.C. Davies in 1969 (Hall, 2012). This model was developed in the US and is

known for its influence on the policy development of the US especially in juvenile court
reforms and the formulation of determinate sentencing laws in 1976 in California. It
considers the blameworthiness of an offender along with the seriousness of their offence
should be the basis of the punitive action or in other words, the punishment should be in
proportion to the gravity of the offence committed by the offender and their intentions
during the act (Hall, 2012).
Management model was formulated in 1991 from the work of various academicians like K.C.
Davies, D Fogel, M Frankel, and Andrew von Hirsch in (Schmalleger, 2017). This model was
the result of an increasing number of repeat offenders and the Labour Governments efforts
of managing them. The Offender Management Model had multiple layered approaches that
included rehabilitating the offender while keeping them under surveillance and controlling
them through punishment wherever necessary. The level of surveillance and control was
defined by the past record of the offender and the potential of them committing a crime.
The primary change brought about by this model was changing the object of focus from
crime to the offender (Schmalleger, 2017).
The models of criminal justice provide an alternate theoretical framework as well as the
perspective of criminal justice based upon the work of academicians from different
backgrounds such as sociological, administrative, and legal backgrounds (Roberts, 2018). It
helps a person to comprehend the criminal justice system in terms of general themes,
principles, and characteristics that could be familiar to them thereby facilitating their
understanding of the complexities of the criminal justice system. However, the models of
criminal Justice are unable to capture all the complexities of criminal justice. The first two
models that supplied an alternate perspective to uninitiated and initiated alike was the
Packer’s models of Criminal justice (Roberts, 2018). These were two in number and were the
basis of the understanding of criminal justice for decades. The Packer's models of criminal
Justice are Crime control model and the Due process model. The crime control model
established the understanding of the process of controlling the crime while the due process
model formed the basis of the understanding of the significance of the procedural
safeguards and the rule of law. The model was improvised by the academician Michael King
in 1981 to provide a broader understanding of criminal justice by addressing the deficiencies
of the Packer's Models of crime control and due process (Roberts, 2018).

Michael king proposed six models including the crime control and due process model to
further elaborate the understanding of the criminal justice system and address avenues left
by the Packer’s models (King, 1981; Vogler, 2017). The Due Process model was the first
model that’s one of the Packer’s models of Criminal Justice. It provides the ideal approach of
the criminal justice system operations based on notions derived from the rule of law. It
considers and addresses the principles of defendants’ rights and promotes its knowledge
and application. Its stress was on convicting the guilty and safeguarding the innocent. It
helps in the interpretation of various rules associated with the pre-trial and trial processes
that safeguard the defendant to acquit the innocent and punish the guilty. The
incorporation of Human Rights Act 1998 has brought this model to the forefront highlighting
its relationship with the human rights of an individual during the criminal proceedings (King,
1981; Vogler, 2017).
The second model crime control model is again a model that was identified by Packer
(Fijnaut, 2016; Freeley, 2017). It enforces the need for swift punishment and prosecution of
the guilty to curd, prevent and reduce the crime. Another aspect of this model is the
protection of the citizen and serving them by reducing the crime. It provides the basis to
interpret the role of law enforcement such as prosecutors and police as crime-fighting with
a focus on ensuring the delivery of justice to the guilty. In this regard, the first and second
models of criminal justice are in confrontation (Fijnaut, 2016; Freeley, 2017). The second
model puts the onus on crime control by apprehending and establishes the guilt of the guilty
irrespective of the evidence without considering the laws insisted upon by the first model.
This contention and the problems arising out of them were resolved on through legislative
measures like Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 making tape recording the suspect
interview mandatory and Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 formulating Crown Prosecution
Service, an independent prosecuting agency (Fijnaut, 2016; Freeley, 2017).
The third model, medical or the rehabilitation model has influenced many aspects of the
process of criminal justice (King, 1981; Vogler, 2017; Roberts, 2018). It stresses on the
rehabilitative approach as a tool to curb the crime and prevent repeat offences. Under this
model, the first time offenders depending on the severity of crime are diverted from
prosecution. This model instils the understanding of the rehabilitative aspects of the
criminal justice system along with the comprehension of powers vested into the Police to

caution the first time offenders and involves social work agencies that could help the
offenders. It promotes individualisation of the decisions with the reports from the probation
officers and social workers by assigning treatment and counselling instead of punishment
(King, 1981; Vogler, 2017; Roberts, 2018).
The fourth model, the Bureaucratic model, presents the knowledge of the pressure
sustained by the criminal justice system and officials of delivering justice while being
constrained by public pressure and lack of resources. The way to ease this pressure is
indicated as swift and efficient trial and sentencing of the defendants through bureaucratic
efficiency thereby promoting cost-effectiveness that has become a major concern nowadays
(King, 1981; Vogler, 2017; Roberts, 2018). The fifth Model, status passage or the
denunciation and degradation model promotes the use of public trails and punishments to
publically shame the offender and to establish the value of being a law-abiding individual.
This model focuses on creating a sense of shame within the offender to prevent further
crime while establishing to the public the importance of abiding the law (King, 1981; Vogler,
2017; Roberts, 2018).
The answer to the questions of the origin of law and its service delivery is considered in the
sixth model, the Power Model. It indicates that a criminal justice system is a tool serving the
powerful by highlighting that the action of the state seems to be favouring the powerful and
elite (King, 1981; Vogler, 2017; Roberts, 2018). The Justice model and management model
inform the uninitiated regarding the punitive process and management of repeat offenders
and their behaviour (Van Ness and Strong, 2014). The Justice model concerns the
punishment and instils the understanding regarding the punishments and its relationship
with the gravity of the crime and the intention behind the crime. The Management Model
explains the method of handling the repeat offenders based on their crime and past crimes
by using rehabilitation, surveillance, and control (Van Ness and Strong, 2014).
Conclusion
It can be surmised from the above that the criminal justice model provides a useful means
of creating an understanding of the criminal justice system. However, the stark contrast in
some of the models such as the crime control model and the due process model that
contradict each other by promoting contradicting aspects of the criminal justice system (Van

Ness and Strong, 2014). It makes following one of the models exclusively an antithesis to the
other model. Another example is the contrast and conflict between the bureaucratic and
due process model. The efficiency promoted by the bureaucratic model will be in gross
disregard of the rights of the offenders (King, 1981; Vogler, 2017; Roberts, 2018). Also, the
Power model acts contradictory to other models such as due process model by indicating a
preference to the powerful instead of equality before the law. It can be concluded in
moderation the practices depicted in the models form the basis of the active criminal justice
system and provides the understanding of the different aspects of the criminal justice
system to the initiated as well as uninitiated.

References
Feeley, M. (2017). Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational
Perspective. In Crime, Law and Society (pp. 119-137). Routledge.
Fijnaut, C. (2016). Organised Crime and Its Control Policies (pp. 605-623). Brill Nijhoff.
Hall, M. (2012). Victims of Crime. Willan.
King, M. (1981). The Framework of Criminal Justice (p. 127). London: Croom Helm.
Roberts, J. (2018). Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Routledge.
Sanders, A., Young, R. and Burton, M. (2010). Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press.
Schmalleger, F. (2017). Criminal Justice. Pearson.
Schmalleger, F., Donaldson, S., Kashiwahara, K., Koppal, T., Chase, S., Brown, A.,
Jarriel, T. and Marash, D. (2014). Criminal Justice Today. Prentice Hall.
Stenson, K. and Sullivan, R.R. eds. (2012). Crime, Risk and Justice. Routledge.
Van Ness, D.W. and Strong, K.H. (2014). Restoring Justice: An Introduction to
Restorative Justice. Routledge.
Vogler, R. (2017). A World View of Criminal Justice. Routledge.