Criminal Procedure Policy - Comparing and Contrasting of the Crime Control Models

When comparing and contrasting of the crime control models, and due process and how they shape the criminal procedure policy it should be kept in mind that both models founded on Constitutional rights. These two models represent values that operate the criminal justice system. Due process and the control models also apply the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Bill of Rights to the criminal justice system.

The two models constructed in 1968 by Herbert Packer, a Stanford University law professor (Zalman, 2088). Crime control model and the due process model, two vales systems within the criminal procedure policy. The crime control model, is mostly reduction of crime, vindicate victims' rights rather than protect defendants' rights, more police power, the criminal justice system should operate like an assembly line, moving cases more swiftly. The accused presumed guilty and should be a discovery of truth or to establish the factual guilt in court. The due process model is more about individual liberties and rights. To provide due process or fairness under the law, more defendants' rights not victims' rights. Police power limited and authorities held accountable to regulations and procedures or guidelines. The criminal justice system should look more like an obstacle course, a series of procedural safeguards' the protection of the innocence as of a conviction of guilt. Both models require value judgments, valid points one more conservative, principles, and polices of due process dominate in the criminal procedure policy and uphold individuals Constitutional rights (Zalman, 2008).

Regarding the Fourth Amendment, is part of the Bill of Rights that guard against unreasonable search and seizures supported by probable cause. In case Mapp v Ohio, in 1961 the Supreme Court the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That evidence obtained by a violation of the Fourth Amendment, may not be used in criminal processes. Mapp's home searched by several police officers who claimed to have a search warrant, but never produced one. An informant had given the officers information about Mapp a bombing suspect and gambling paraphernalia, which were never found. What was found was obscene material and Mapp convicted of possession of these materials (Cornell University Law School, 2007).

The