The criminal justice system can be quite complicated, especially in the attempt to punish offenders for wrongs committed. Society expects the system to be efficient and quick, but the protection of individual rights and justice being fairly delivered takes time. Ultimately, the balance of these goals is ideal, but it can be challenging to control crime and quickly punish offenders, while also ensuring constitutional rights are not infringed upon while delivering justice.

In the 1960s, legal scholar Herbert L. Packer created models to describe exceeding expectations of the criminal justice system. These two models can be competing ideologies in criminal justice, but we will discuss how these models can be merged or balanced to work together. The first tension between these models is often the values they place as most important in the criminal justice system, the crime control model, and the due process model (Packer, 1964).

The crime control model focuses on having an efficient system, with the most important function being to suppress and control crime to ensure that society is safe and there is public order. Under this model, controlling crime is more important to individual freedom. This model is a more conservative perspective. In order to protect society and make sure individuals feel free from the threat of crime, the crime control model would advocate for swift and severe punishment for offenders. Under this model, the justice process may resemble prosecutors charging an ‘assembly-line’: law enforcement suspects apprehend suspects; the courts determine guilt; and guilty people receive appropriate, and severe, punishments through the correctional system (Roach, 1999). The crime control model may be more likely to take a plea bargain because trials may take too much time and slow down the process.

The due process model focuses on having a just and fair criminal justice system for all and a system that does not infringe upon constitutional rights. Further, this model would argue that the system should be more like an ‘obstacle course,’ rather than an ‘assembly line.’ The protection of individual rights and freedoms is of utmost importance (Yerkes, 1969).