Major Models of the Criminal Justice System Packer’s Models The first major conceptual model of the criminal justice system came from Herbert Packer, who was a distinguished professor of law at Stanford University. In the 1960s, Packer published an article titled “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” which was later included in a book titled The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. In these publications, Packer presented two models of the criminal justice system: the crime control model and the due process model. His goal was to present two models that would “give operational content to a complex of values underlying the criminal law.” Packer achieved his goal, for these two models have come to reflect the competing ideologies and policies of the criminal justice system. Packer did not necessarily want these two models to become an oversimplification of the values that underlie the criminal process. Rather, he wanted to be able to communicate the two competing systems of values that created an enormous amount of tension on the development of the criminal process and how it should best be ordered. He did contend that the polarity of the two models was not absolute and that there was some common ground between these competing philosophies. The primary commonality between these two competing models, Packer explained, could actually be found in their adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Both adhered to the principles found in the Constitution, but each does so in its own unique way. In addition, both agree that our system is an adversarial system, pitting the prosecution against the defense. Neither model disagrees with this basic premise, but how they react to the adversarial system of justice is quite diverse. Despite the articulation of this “common ground” between the competing models, it is the polarity of the two models that is most renowned and most discussed in terms of Packer’s models. Therefore, it is to these two competing models we now turn. Crime Control The crime control model articulates that the repression of criminal conduct is by far the most important function of the criminal justice system. If the system and, more specifically, the police fail to keep criminal conduct under tight control, then it is believed that this will lead to the breakdown of public order, which will cause the denigration of human freedom. If people are not free to do as they choose for fear of crime, then society suffers. Thus, the criminal justice system becomes a guarantor of human freedom. And to achieve this freedom, the crime control model argues that the criminal justice system is charged with arresting suspects, determining guilt, and ensuring that criminals are properly punished. Therefore, the crime control model stresses the need for efficiency and speed to generate a high rate of apprehension while dealing with limited resources. The goal is to then process these individuals through the system by moving those who are not guilty out of the process a ...

1. Major Models of the Criminal Justice System
Packer’s Models
The first major conceptual model of the criminal justice system
came from Herbert Packer, who was
a distinguished professor of law at Stanford University. In the
1960s, Packer published an article
titled “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” which was later
included in a book titled The Limits of
the Criminal Sanction. In these publications, Packer presented
two models of the criminal justice
system: the crime control model and the due process model. His
goal was to present two models
that would “give operational content to a complex of values
underlying the criminal law.” Packer
achieved his goal, for these two models have come to reflect the
competing ideologies and policies
of the criminal justice system.
Packer did not necessarily want these two models to become an
oversimplification of the values
that underlie the criminal process. Rather, he wanted to be able
to communicate the two
competing systems of values that created an enormous amount
of tension on the development of
the criminal process and how it should best be ordered. He did
contend that the polarity of the two
models was not absolute and that there was some common
ground between these competing
philosophies. The primary commonality between these two
competing models, Packer explained,
could actually be found in their adherence to the U.S.
Constitution. Both adhered to the principles
found in the Constitution, but each does so in its own unique
way. In addition, both agree that our
system is an adversarial system, pitting the prosecution against

2. the defense. Neither model
disagrees with this basic premise, but how they react to the
adversarial system of justice is quite
diverse. Despite the articulation of this “common ground”
between the competing models, it is the
polarity of the two models that is most renowned and most
discussed in terms of Packer’s models.
Therefore, it is to these two competing models we now turn.
Crime Control
The crime control model articulates that the repression of
criminal conduct is by far the most
important function of the criminal justice system. If the system
and, more specifically, the police
fail to keep criminal conduct under tight control, then it is
believed that this will lead to the
breakdown of public order, which will cause the denigration of
human freedom. If people are not
free to do as they choose for fear of crime, then society suffers.
Thus, the criminal justice system
becomes a guarantor of human freedom. And to achieve this
freedom, the crime control model
argues that the criminal justice system is charged with arresting
suspects, determining guilt, and
ensuring that criminals are properly punished. Therefore, the
crime control model stresses the need
for efficiency and speed to generate a high rate of apprehension
while dealing with limited
resources. The goal is to then process these individuals through
the system by moving those who
are not guilty out of the process and moving those who are
toward some form of sanction. Every
step in the system, however, is focused on the successful and
speedy prosecution of the offender.
To this end, individual constitutional rights must often be seen
as secondary to the effective
prosecution of offenders. This model assumes that in most

3. cases, people who are brought into the
system are in fact guilty; otherwise, they would not have been
brought into the system in the first
place. Thus, a presumption of guilt exists prior to a suspect
becoming a defendant. Therefore, one
way to achieve successful prosecution of these suspects is for
lawyers from both sides to come to
an agreement about the case, achieve a guilty plea, and close the
case.
Due Process
The due process model is generally the polar opposite of the
crime control model. The ideology
behind the model is that due process is “far more deeply
impressed on the formal structure of the
law” and that the protection of individual, and thus
constitutional rights, is paramount. Every
effort must be made to guarantee that an individual is not being
unfairly labeled and treated as a
criminal, especially before being found guilty. Hence, rather
than assuming a suspect to be guilty,
due process assumes the suspect to be innocent, and guilt must
be proven by the criminal justice
system. The purpose of the system, then, is to create a process
of successive stages that is
process, at least to the greatest extent possible. Packer describes
the due process model as always
being skeptical of the morality and utility of the criminal
sanction and is wary of the actors in the
criminal justice system. Thus, at each successive stage of the
system, roadblocks are created to
ensure that the innocent go free and that the guilty receive equal
protection under the law.
Although Packer did not desire the two models to be seen as
entirely polar opposites of an
ideological spectrum, it is this aspect of the model that is most
attractive to the student of criminal

4. justice. The crime control model resembles an assembly line,
while the due process model
resembles an obstacle course. The crime control model is
oriented on being as efficient as possible,
while the due process model desires to be equitable. The goal of
the crime control model is to
punish criminals, while the due process model aims to protect
individual rights. The crime control
model achieves its ends through tough legislation and strong
enforcement through the
administrative process. The due process model is more
judicially oriented and is legalistic in nature.
And, as both models are ideologically driven, they tend to be
represented by the two political
ideological perspectives as well. The crime control model is
adhered to more often by
conservatives, and the due process model is more often
attributed to liberals. Although there are
always exceptions to the rule and these generalizations might
not always hold true, they have a
strong consistency because they are ideologically based.
Feeley’s Models
Taking Packer’s two models a little further was Malcolm M.
Feeley, a professor of criminal justice
and the law, in a 1973 article titled “Two Models of the
Criminal Justice System: An Organizational
Approach.” Feeley’s purpose was to create a theoretical
framework for explaining the organization
of criminal justice in order that research could be viewed
through these two perspectives. Feeley
articulated that there were two models of organization: the
rational-goal model and the functionalsystems
model.
Rational Goal
To create his rational-goal model, Feeley combined two models
that had been previously advanced

5. and merged them into one model. The rational model argues that
an organization is focused on the
means of accomplishing its mission, while the goals model
argues that it is not the means but
rather the end that is important. Feeley advances the argument
that in criminal justice these two
concepts, the means and the goals (ends), are often the same
thing, for in criminal justice we seek
justice (means) to obtain justice (goals). The way this is
accomplished is through an adherence to
strict rules and procedures within the bureaucracy, much in the
vein of Max Weber.
Weber is the primary scholar who speaks to the rational
organization as being the primary means
by which government achieves its goals. Organizations are
characterized by several major
components, consisting of (1) a continuous organization of
official functions bound by rules, (2) a
specific sphere of competence (obligations) in the division of
labor to be performed by a person
who is provided with the necessary means and authority to carry
out their tasks, (3) the
organization of offices following the principle of hierarchy, and
(4) a set of technical rules and
norms regulating the conduct of the offices. As in the criminal
justice system, the system itself is
made up of various officials (police, judges, correctional
officers, and so on) who are bound by
formal rules, given specific responsibilities and authority to
carry out their duties, must follow a
chain of command (especially in policing and corrections), and
are guided by policies and
procedures in the performance of their duties. By ensuring that
the organization is highly effective
in the performance of their duties (means), they can ensure that
they achieve their ends (goals).

6. Thus, effectiveness, like in Packer’s crime control model, is the
overriding goal.
Functional Systems
The functional-systems model is a different conception of how
an organization is employed. The
common characteristics of this model are that criminal justice is
a “system of action based primarily
upon cooperation, exchange, and adaptation” and that it
emphasizes “these considerations over
adherence to formal rules and defined ‘roles’ in searching for
and developing explanations of
behavior and discussing organizational effectiveness.” In fact,
this model would acknowledge the
viewpoint that the criminal justice system is not very effective
in operating through its rules and
that the actual means for obtaining these goals is the adherence
to the more informal rules of the
game, folkways, personal relationships, and dedicated
individuals. Another way of explaining the
differences between the two models is that the rational-goal
model is focused on creating a rational
organization, while the functional-systems model is focused on
creating rational individuals, those
people who work within the criminal justice system, to be better
adept at pursuing goals. Hence,
increased discretion is important in the functional-systems
model because it allows those actors in
the system to make decisions in the application of the law rather
than the rules, as would be the
case in the rational-goal model.
In Feeley’s two models, we once again see ideology as shaping
the viewpoint of how criminal
justice should best be organized. Packer’s models provided us
two viewpoints for understanding
the purpose of criminal justice, while Feeley’s models provide
us a perspective on how best to

7. organize society in order for these ends to be achieved. Thus, it
can be seen that those whose
ideological beliefs lead them to believe that the crime control
model is the proper function of our
criminal justice system will also most likely believe that the
rational-goal model is the best way to
achieve this end. Those who believe in the due process model
will most likely articulate that the
functional-systems model is the best way to organize the
criminal justice system. Ideology again
If the complexity of Feeley’s two models is lost on the reader,
then perhaps it can be made
clearer through the more recent debates over whether criminal
justice is a system or a nonsystem.
In the criminal justice system model, the concept that criminal
justice operates as a bona fide
system is advanced. A system is made up of interdependent
elements that work together to
perform one or more tasks or goals. This definition implies first
that the component parts or
subsystems are working together to reach one ultimate goal and
second that the system is a
sequential, orderly process similar to a factory assembly line
whereby a client must be processed
through each stage before entering into the next. There are
component parts (the police, courts,
and corrections agencies) that work together to reach the goal of
reducing or preventing crime.
There is also a sequential process that must be followed as one
goes through the criminal justice
system. When individuals enter the system, they must do so
through an arrest: They cannot go
straight to the courts or to the corrections components. Then,
after the arrest stage, a defendant
goes through the court component. They cannot go directly to
the corrections area. Only after the

8. defendant had been processed through the first two components
of the system can he or she enter
the corrections component. In order to get to the next level, an
offender must have had contact
with all the preceding ones.
Each of the components must work together to achieve a final
result, meaning that they are
interdependent. The work of each department, therefore, is
heavily influenced by the work of
every other department. When one unit changes its policies or
practices, other units will be
affected. For example, an increase in the number of people
arrested by the police will affect the
work not only of the judicial subsystem but also of the
probation and correctional subsystems. Each
part must make its own distinctive contribution: Each part must
also have at least minimal contact
with at least one other component of the system.
From this perspective, the criminal justice system is indeed a
“system.” However, many people
see the criminal justice system as a nonsystem in which the
component parts do not work together
to achieve a goal. Each of the departments is independent and
has its own tasks or goals. The
police have a goal of bringing people into the system, while the
corrections system wants to get
them out. Within the courts, the prosecution wants to keep the
defendant in the system, and the
defense wants to get the case dismissed. Each agency acts as its
own department, with its own
goals and needs. In addition, each component struggles to find
its own resources, sometimes
competing for the same resources. This competition, added to
strained relations, poor
communications, and a reluctance to cooperate with each other,
can generate antagonism between

9. the departments. This, in turn, can lead to poor working
relationships and resistance to working
with each other and doing what is in the best interest of the
client and society. Additionally, people
working inside the system, as well as those observing the
system, lose their respect for the system
and may be more likely to seek justice in alternative ways.
Cox and Wade’s Criminal Justice System
Another way of thinking about the nonsystem approach has been
advanced by Cox and Wade, who
argue that the traditional flowchart presentation of the criminal
justice system is often misleading
and inaccurate. They argue that it fails to indicate the routine
pursuit of different, sometimes
incompatible goals by various components; the effects of
feedback based on personal relationships
inside and outside criminal justice; the importance of political
considerations by all those involved;
and the widespread use of discretion. Instead, what they argue
is that we really do not have a
criminal justice system but rather a criminal justice network.
They advance this nonsystem concept
as “consisting of a web of constantly changing relationships
among individuals, some of whom are
directly involved in criminal justice pursuits, others who are
not” and that “a network may be
thought of as a net with intersecting lines of communication
among components designed to
function in a specific manner.” What Cox and Wade argue is
that each criminal event can be
unique and that the network will come to bear on the problem in
different ways. A series of simple
larcenies from auto may generate a network of police officers,
detectives, and prosecutors to
address the problem, while a kidnapped child who is taken
across state lines will create a network

10. of both criminal justice actors (local police, state police,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
prosecutors, and so on) and non-criminal justice actors (victims’
family, the media, the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and so on).
Different actors, agencies, and resources are
all brought to bear on a specific problem, but it is not a standard
response, nor is it always going
to be the same responders. These various criminal justice and
non-criminal justice actors employ
those aspects of the network that are necessary to address a
specific problem. This is why they
explain that the criminal justice “network” is a “web of
constantly changing relationships among
individuals involved more or less directly in the pursuit of
criminal justice.”
These various models of the criminal justice system (or
network) provide varying ideological
approaches to criminal justice and help us understand how we
perceive this system. Yet there is
something more to our understanding of criminal justice that is
an extension of our ideological
approach to justice that tells us the purpose of the system itself.
While most would agree that the
ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is to seek justice,
the term justice can have various
meanings to various people. Again, these variations generally
proceed from one’s ideological
perspective. What defines this complexity is most often the
discussion of the goals of the criminal
justice system. It is here that perhaps the greatest conflict
begins to arise in policy formulation,
and it is to this topic we now turn
Protected Class

11. Write a 2-3+ page, double-spaced, paper addressing the
following:
· What type of employees are considered a protected class?
· Compare and contrast the Affirmative Action law briefly
discussed in Chapter 12 on page 276, against two of the U.S.
laws aimed to prevent employment discrimination described in
Figure 13.1, p. 296.
· Review the article Belief in a Just World and Attitudes
Toward Affirmative Action and consider how the”Less well-
understood notion of the relationship between deservingness
and attitudes toward social provision to groups” (Wilkins &
Wenger, 2014, p. 329) relates to the Affirmative Action policy.
EBSCO article: Wilkins, V. M., & Wenger, J. B. (2014). Belief
in a just world and attitudes toward affirmative action. Policy
Studies Journal, 42(3), 325-343. DOI:10.1111/psj.12063.
Structures and Frameworks
· Explain formal and informal structures and decipher between
traditional and non-traditional frameworks. Describe the
characteristics that set functional, divisional, and matrix
structures apart.
· What are the advantages and disadvantages of each design?
150 words essay. Original work only.