There are two opposing models in our country of due process and crime control. Proponents for due process maintain that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be imprisoned

Question

Crime control proponents argue that perpetrators of crime must pay for their crimes at all costs, even if their rights are violated. Do most due process advocates only care about the events leading up to the conviction? Do they not care as much after the conviction if the guilty criminal is subjected to harsh and unfair penalties? In other words, is the worry more about an innocent person being convicted or is it about fairness all the way through the system, even for child molesters, rapists, and murderers? If police made an appropriate arrest and the trial was completely fair and a person is convicted of 1st degree murder, would due process proponents complain if the murderer was given 20 more years than a different murderer received on a prior case? What is your opinion?

Answer 1

This question calls for an opinion, but the purpose is for students to ponder what it is that they really want instead of being placed on one of two sides. It is common for people who are asked which side they favor to be strongly for due process, but feel differently about certain serious/violent offenders. For college students, it is common to visualize the overzealous police officer harassing the youth and maybe making an arrest that isn't legitimate. On the other hand, those who have been a victim of a serious crime often feel strongly in favor of crime control, but also feel the police must read the Miranda rights to a suspect, even if that person has heard his rights 5-10 times from other arrests. Again, the goal of this question is for students to evaluate what they really want to see from our criminal justice system. Is it legitimate police work, fairness to guilty criminals, or something not specifically covered by either side?