I.          Introduction

Upholding the rule of law, ensuring justice, and preserving public order are some of the major among several goals of the criminal justice system. The main focus of its objective is to prevent and punish criminal activity, which is vital for community safety and stability. The system also provides offenders with chances of reformation and reintegration into society as part of their rehabilitation. The criminal justice system works to safeguard citizens, ensure equitable legal proceedings, and promote a safer environment for everyone by striking a balance between these objectives.[1]

Despite major social, technological, and administrative changes, the criminal justice system, which includes the police, prosecution, courts, and state correctional agencies, has remained remarkably unchanged. This stability stems in part from the insularity of these institutions and their relative immunity to outside scrutiny and influence, and in part it also comes from the autonomy of the individual parts of the system, each of which follows a set of guidelines to work toward its own sub-optimal goal.[2] A single manager who has authority over every component of a criminal justice system does not exist anywhere.

However, the models of the criminal justice system vary from state to state. According to Herbert Packer, there are two models of a criminal justice system that compete with each other.[3] Although he suggests that none of these models are good or bad, they form a part of the two extremes in which a criminal justice system can exist. He called these models- the crime control model and the due process model.

According to Packer[4], the idea that the suppression of criminal activity is by far the most crucial task for the criminal justice system forms the foundation of the value system that guides the Crime Control Model. It is believed that when law enforcement fails to strictly regulate criminal behaviour, public order will collapse, which will ultimately result in the loss of one of the most vital facets of human freedom. A general disregard for laws tends to emerge if they are not enforced, that is if a large percentage of people are not apprehended and convicted during the criminal process.  The law-abiding citizen is then subjected to a variety of unwarranted interference with his rights. His freedom to act as a member of society is severely curtailed, as is his security of person and property. The criminal process should be the guarantor of social freedom. The Crime Control Model stipulates that to accomplish this monumental task, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in screening suspects, determining guilt, and securing suitable dispositions for those found guilty of crimes must be given top priority.

The due process model prioritizes reliability over effectiveness, in contrast to the crime control model. It is always sceptical about the possibility of error and an innocent accused getting convicted. Thus, the presumption of innocence, protection of individual liberties, judicial oversight of executive actions, and additional scrutiny to eliminate the possibility of error are the values of the model. The due process model promotes a formal and adjudicatory fact-finding process in place of the crime control model’s informal and non-adjudicative fact-finding. The due process model’s primary goals are to be as error-free as possible and to ensure that the accused is treated fairly. It acknowledges that efficiency is a desirable quality, but only when it complements reliability.

Therefore, the two models of Packer are compared to ‘the assembly-line production’ and ‘the obstacle course’. In a due-process model, each of its successive stages is intended to present formidable obstacles to moving the accused further along in the process, unlike assembly-line production, which moves an endless stream of cases, never stopping, carrying them to workers who stand at fixed stations and perform on each case, as it comes by the same, small but essential operation that brings it one step closer to being a finished product, or, to exchange the metaphor for the reality, a closed file.

Packer in his work, “Two Models of Criminal Process” has stated that to find a normative model that underlies the values of almost all the criminal processes “……It will take more than one model, but it will not take more than two.”[5] However, Beloof contradicted this idea in his work.[6] He argued that Packer did not anticipate the modern law which takes into account the formal victim participation and hence, the assertion made by Packer does not stand true today.

Beloof suggested a third model of the criminal process, not to replace but to complement the two models formulated by Packer. This model he called- THE VICTIM PARTICIPATION MODEL.

[1] S. Mayeux, “The Idea of Criminal Justice System” 45 American Journal of Criminal law (2018).

[2] GE Lynch, “Our Administrative System of Criminal Justice” 83 Fordham Law Review (2009).

[3] Herbert L. Packer, “Two models of Criminal Process” 113 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1964).

[4]Ibid.

[5] Doughlas E. Beloof, “The third model of the criminal process: the victim-participation model” Utah Law Review (1999).

[6]Ibid.