Essay: Emergence of Competing Models in Criminal Justice

This essay delves into the emergence and evolution of competing models in criminal justice, starting with Herbert Packer's crime control and due process models. It examines the influence of these models on the understanding of crime rates and the development of criminal theory. The essay explores the shift towards victim-centric approaches, discussing punitive and non-punitive models of victim's rights, and critiques Packer's theories in light of contemporary issues such as minority rights, familial violence, and the limitations of his frameworks. The discussion highlights the importance of theoretical constructs in shaping the actions of those involved in the criminal justice system and informing public understanding. The essay concludes by emphasizing the essential need for these models as a lens through which to view and engage with the complexities of crime and justice.

Running head: EMERGENCE OF COMPETING MODELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Emergence of Competing Models of Criminal Justice
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1EMERGENCE OF COMPETING MODELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Introduction:
The word Criminal Justice which is also called Criminal Theory deals with the rate of
crimes. For the study of the crime rates and control of crimes it had been very important to
develop theoretical infrastructure or models which would be concerned with the phenomenon of
crime. However in the recent decades, the importance of these models have been studied. The
following essay deals with the essentiality of the competing models of the criminal theory and
the criminal justice.
Discussion:
The emergence of the models of Criminal justice began with the invention of the two
models of Criminal process by Herbert Parker in 1964 (Schmalleger et.al., 2014). His models
helped the people to manage with the intricacy of the development of crime. Through the
models, the themes and trends of crime rates became highlighted and the details became more
simplified, easily understood by the common people. According to Wolfe et.al., (2016), multiple
models provide the people with numerous versions of what is actually is happening and the
various other multiple aspects of how the system operates. As per the discussion of Grattet & Lin
(2016), the emergence of the models have served several purposes in the recent decades. They
provide guidance for assessing the political system's real or effective service. Packer's model
of crime prevention indicated that most cases involve up in culpable confessions or judicial
dismissal while his due process model indicated that the most successful were the cases that go
to court and are appealed (Wolfe et.al, 2016).

2EMERGENCE OF COMPETING MODELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
There are also other models which emerged in the due process and deal with the different
conceptions of the rights of the victims. similar to Packer's crime control and due process
models, they aim to offer descriptions that are effective regarding the procedure of the criminal
justice system, standardized statements about what values should the criminal justice be
following, and elaborate descriptions of the discussions that surround criminal justice (Crawford
& Goodey, 2019). The frameworks and structures that are focused on the rights of victims can
thus characterize developments for instance the recent political case uniting the person who is in
charge of the offense against victims of crime or other communities linked to victims of crime,
or criminal justice procedures bringing victims of violence and their supporters together with
suspects and their allies (Vogler, 2017).
However according to the arguments of Farrington, MacLeod & Piquero (2016), Packer’s
models of criminal justice no longer stand that effective in the modern scenario. Today, they are
insufficient manuals for explaining criminal justice law and politics. They became scientifically,
subjectively, and philosophically impoverished. Farrington, MacLeod & Piquero (2016), also
claims that they are unable to provide explanation to the facts that why the minorities and the
women, the children or the crime victims claim their individual rights to the criminal sanction.
Also the models cannot provide any sort of logical sense regarding the existence of the sexual
and familial violence over the women of the households and the crimes associated with hatred
towards the minority groups of the society (Wolfe et.al., 2016). Packer's theories that deal with
the tension between crime prevention and due process were questioned, which indicated that a
such a reform was not compatible with rising control of crimes as calculated by increasing crime
rates. According to Persak (2016), Parker’s due process model tends to be scientifically
meaningless in most situations and analytical experts claim that the concept of due process,

3EMERGENCE OF COMPETING MODELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
instead of limiting the state, allows and legitimizes crime prevention. Others also indicated that
due process is all too possible and hurts the vulnerable by impeding crime prevention.
Van Gelder (2017) says that Packer had neglected the risk of victimization in his models
of criminal justice which led to the emergence of two other models, where there would have
been the integration of the knowledge of the crimes that went unreported. The two new models
of the crime theory involved the victim’s rights (Crawford & Goodey, 2019). They were the
punitive model of victim’s rights relying upon the sanction of the criminal offences and
retribution and the non punitive model which laid more emphasis upon the prevention of the
crimes and the restoration. Similar to the Packer's due process model and crime control model
which was like an assembly line, the evocative examples also sum up these frameworks. The
punitive model can also be described as a total turnover ride (Farrington, MacLeod & Piquero,
2016). It retains the linear nature of crime prevention and due process structures as it progresses
through courts, appeals and sentences, but the trip becomes more bumpy due to the well-crafted
inability of the criminal penalty to prevent the crimes and safeguard the victims and recent
political cases that create a hollow space in the due process arguments against arguments of the
rights of the accused (Schmalleger et.al., 2014). The non-punitive model of the rights of victims
can be defined with the help of a circle that represents triumphant hindrance of crime through
community and family developing and effective restorative justice actions. Eradication of crime
and restorative justice both bring together people as a collective group. The non-punitive model
is more inclusive and can integrate into the health of the human, their well-being and societal
equity concerns, while the punitive model facilitates legalization of these concerns (Farrington,
MacLeod & Piquero, 2016).

4EMERGENCE OF COMPETING MODELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Conclusion:
Thus from the above discussion it can be concluded that there had been an essential need
for the models of the criminal theory. The models or the theoretical constructs are essential and
they have emerged throughout the decades since they act as a lens. Through these models all
those who are directly or indirectly involved with the community of crime, engage themselves in
active action. Moreover, they inform the people about the theory and help them to get used to the
practice.

5EMERGENCE OF COMPETING MODELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Reference List:
Crawford, A., & Goodey, J. (Eds.). (2019). Integrating a victim perspective within criminal
justice: International debates. Routledge.
Farrington, D. P., MacLeod, J. F., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Mathematical models of criminal
careers: Deriving and testing quantitative predictions. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 53(3), 336-355.
Grattet, R., & Lin, J. (2016). Supervision intensity and parole outcomes: A competing risks
approach to criminal and technical parole violations. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 565-583.
Peršak, N. (2016). Norms, harms and disorder at the border: the legitimacy of criminal law
intervention through the lens of criminalisation theory. In Legitimacy and Trust in
Criminal Law, Policy and Justice (pp. 21-42). Routledge.
Schmalleger, F., Donaldson, S., Kashiwahara, K., Koppal, T., Chase, S., Brown, A., ... &
Marash, D. (2014). Criminal justice today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van Gelder, J. L. (2017). Dual-process Models of Criminal Decision Making (Vol. 6, pp. 166-
80). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vogler, R. (2017). A world view of criminal justice. Routledge.
Wolfe, S. E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R., & Rojek, J. (2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on
police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing
antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of quantitative criminology, 32(2), 253-282.