Controlled Criminal Justice System

Distinct Advantages Law Essay

A crime control centred criminal justice system refers to a practice whereby the emphasis on criminal
justice system is placed on the restraint of criminal in the society. Herbert Packer differentiates this
model with the due process model which highlights the importance of protecting the rights of an
accused or defendant. [1] It is thought that these two models are conflicting in their aims and
objectives. A criminal justice system which adopted the crime control model is more likely to convict
an innocent accused since the model indirectly encourages a wrong conviction rather than to release
a guilty criminal. In line with the major aim of reducing the crime rates, the crime control centred
criminal justice system strives to enhance the peacefulness of a country through pulling out the
aggressive lawbreaker from the pool of innocent citizens. Although the aims and objective of the due
process model are respectable, it seems to jeopardize the rights of the accused as the presumption
of guilt upon arrest is backed.
The United Kingdom (UK) has leaned towards the crime control down to the frequent terrorist attack
on the western countries in recent years. In fact, many countries have made changes to their
criminal justice system, indifferently through introduction or reinforcement of stricter piece of anti-
terrorism legislation. Accordingly, it would be interesting to see how effective is a crime control
centered criminal justice system in bringing down the crime rates. As one glances over the crime
rates statistic of the western countries, it is not difficult to find that most of the countries are enjoying
declining crime rates, regardless the model of criminal justice system taken on in their countries.
Indeed, there can be many causes that affect the crime rates, for example, the stability of the
economics. [2] Thus, it is doubtful whether the credit of reduced crime rates should goes to the crime
control measures adopted as there is no evidence to suggest so.
Although it is true to say that the overall crime rate has declined over the years, [3] one should be
mindful that UK is the undesirable champion of the violent crime rate amongst the European
nations. [4] Whilst the sinking of crime rates in UK is unnoticeable, the increases in police power and
prison population are relentless. Seeing the still high crime rates, the UK governments effort to get
tough on crime is apparently fruitless. Irvin Waller has advocated addressing the problem of high
crime rates by focusing on the causes of crime, namely the social issue. [5] For a crime control
centred criminal justice system to work effectively, the government should tackle the right basis of
high crime rates rather than to keep chucking more and more people into prison effortlessly.
Otherwise, a crime control centred criminal justice system would not necessarily reduce crime. The
British Crime Survey reveals that around two thirds of people believed that the crime had increased
generally while the actual overall crime rate drops. [6] One can say that the governments overact in
fighting terrorism has backfired in view of the fact that one of the ultimate goals of a crime control
centred criminal justice system is to boost public confidence.
The inevitable drawback of a crime control emphasised system is the lessening of the protections of
the accused. In UK, the police stop and search powers in various Acts are interpreted in favour of
the police. To begin with, both Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and
Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) allow the officer to carry out
stop and search where there is reasonable ground for suspicion of offence or violence. A wide
discretion is given to the police as the words reasonable ground for suspicion are subjectively
judged. In Holgate Mohammed v. Duke [7] , the House of Lords has set an unpleasant example in
interpreting reasonable ground for suspicion which granted the police a huge power of arrest. The
low threshold set makes it easier for the police to exercise their power of arrest generously and it
would then be harder for the accused to challenge the police for wrongful arrest.
Most controversially, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 grants the stop and search power to an
officer without the need for a reasonable ground to suspect. The occurrence of unjustifiable stop and
search is likely to be multiplied since the 2000 Act in some way masked the abuse of power by
police. In his 2009 report [8] , Lord Carlile has expressed his concern for the issue of power-abuse
using anti-terrorist legislation. The police are accused for stopping White people unreasonably so as
to escape from the racist allegation that has haunted them for centuries. In Gillan and Quinton v. The
United Kingdom [9] , the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) agreed that the stop and search
power bestowed to the police under Sections 44 & 45 Terrorism Act 2000 was a violation of Article 8
of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It can be submitted that the ECtHR
recognised a risk of an infringement of human rights, which arises from the reducing protection given
to a suspect or accused, if the government places undue weight in crime control.