The principles of justice

V
293
comments
i
e
w

A central goal of the criminal justice system is to

promote and maintain public confidence in the
administration of justice. It is a system which aims to
safeguard the innocent from conviction, to ensure that
the accused gets a fair trial, free from prejudice, and
which seeks to achieve a high standard in the
investigation of crime (Zuckerman, 1991).
Yet there are many competing models of criminal justice based
on the different perspectives and agendas of those within the
criminal justice system.
Herbert Packer (1968), a distinguished professor of law at
Stanford University, identified two of the most enduring models
which offer explanations as to how agencies and policies may
be shaped and they can usefully be viewed as opposite ends of
a continuum since they present contrasting rationale and
characteristics. They are the Crime Control and Due
Process models.
Crime control model
This model is considered to be a conservative approach to
crime based on the premise that failure to bring criminal
conduct under control will lead to the breakdown of law and
ultimately to the disappearance of human freedom. It
emphasises the role of the criminal justice system in reducing
and preventing crime by way of prosecuting and punishing
those who are guilty of criminal offences. Criminal cases should
move through the criminal system as efficiently as possible and
the rights of individual defendants are less important than the
bureaucratic demands of repressing and controlling criminal
behaviour.

This model requires a presumption of guilt. This is based on the

belief that the screening processes of the police and
prosecutors are reliable indicators of guilt, therefore if there is
enough evidence of guilt to hold a person for further action,
rather than releasing them, then all subsequent activity is
directed towards the person based on the view that they are
probably guilty. This presumption allows the crime control
model to deal efficiently with large numbers (Packer, 1968).
Due process
The due process model is considered to be a liberal approach
to criminal justice representing an idealised version of how the
system should work. This model incorporates ideas inherent in
the rule of law and emphasises the rights of the defendant
through the principles of the presumption of innocence, the
defendants right to a fair trial, equality before the law and that
justice should be seen to be done. An example of a due
process measure is the introduction of the Human Rights Act
1998 which allows for criminal justice practices to be
scrutinised from a human rights perspective.
The administrative model
In general the main role of the criminal court is not regarded as
an administrative one. It is seen to do justice within the bounds
of due process, regardless of, for example, the costs of a
lengthy trial organised around a presumption of innocence. Yet
the stereotype of this anti-administrative integrity can easily be
questioned (Lacey, 1981). The Royal Commission on Criminal
Justice 1993 confirmed that within the criminal justice system
today, an administrative model has more bearing than either
crime control or due process. It was implied by the Commission
that the conviction of the guilty, the acquittal of the innocent
and the cost of the process were key facets of the work of the
criminal justice system which should carry equal weight. So
rational management influences the courtroom as much as

rational decision-making.
Offenders are processed and disposed of as quickly as possible
in terms of time and resources, and key performance indicators
relate to cost per case and the time taken between committal
and trial. This leads to pressure to speed up cases and to
negotiate the outcome by whatever means possible. In all of
this the defendant has a passive role to play and thus the
quality of the decision reached becomes less significant.
Just deserts
The just deserts model (Davies, Croall and Tyrer, 1995)
combines elements of retribution for offenders with a notion of
proper respect for the treatment of the accused or defendant.
This model stresses the importance of punishing offenders in
terms of their blameworthiness and the seriousness of their
offence, not through crude revenge or incapacitation, but in
response to the wrongfulness of their act. This brings together
the principles of respect for the offender as a human being with
certain rights, the need to establish the offenders culpability
for the offence so as to punish only the guilty, and the right of
society to extract retribution from those who have done wrong.
By such an approach, the links of punishment and crime to
issues of morality and control are established.
So what can we conclude from this?
The various models all pull in different directions and have a
huge effect on the outcome of a case. Crime control; presuming
guilt, due process; presuming innocence, and administrative
convenience taking care of the cost factor.
What is clear is that there is a greater emphasis upon
economics in todays criminal court. Therefore, jury trial, the
epitome of the due process model, is avoided where possible
and costs are reduced. Even the Royal Commission in 1993 saw
its duty as examining the effectiveness of the criminal justice
system in securing the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal

of the innocent, having greatest regard to the efficient use of

resources (Sanders, 1994). Thus, the rights of the accused are
considered inefficient and uneconomic with the implication that
due process is too expensive, inefficient, and ineffective (Jones,
1993).
Thus auditing, allied to managerialism, has come to underpin
an increasingly cost-oriented legal system. Efficiency appears
to be the end as well as the means, and the overriding goal of
the criminal justice system is that of the administrative model.
We seem to be embroiled in a system that simultaneously
proclaims the right of defendants to let the prosecution prove
their case, whilst at the same time doing its utmost to ensure
that the vast majority waive that right.

References
Davies, M., Croall, H., and Tyrer, J., (1995) Criminal Justice (1st
ed), London: Longman.
Lacey N., (1991) Government as Manager, Citizen as
Consumer: The Case of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Modern
Law Review, Vol. 57.
Packer, H., (1958) The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Sanders, A., (1994) Thinking About Criminal Justice in
McConville M., and Bridges L., Criminal Justice in Crisis. London:
Edward Elgar.
Zuckerman A.A.S., (1991) Miscarriage of Justice and Judicial
Responsibility, Criminal Law Review p.492.
The University of Sheffield