Assembly-Line Justice

Conservatives and liberals are virtually defined by their commitment to either crime control or the U.S. Constitution, and together their divergent views continue to fuel the debate over which priorities ought to be emphasized in the criminal justice system. To conservatives, the most important function served by the criminal justice system is to ensure human freedom by allowing citizens to be secure in person and property from the actions of criminals; thus, reducing lawlessness should be the system's primary goal. This objective is to be achieved by implementing assembly-line justice, a crime control model that stresses efficiency, reliability, and productivity, as measured by increases in arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. Conversely, liberals endorse a due process model based on the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. From this perspective, the greatest threat to social freedom comes from the [Page 78]government; if the criminal justice system is to maintain its integrity, it must protect the rights of the accused and uphold the rules of criminal procedure, including the presumption of innocence; the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, speedy trial, and confrontation of witnesses; and the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Strict interpretations of the assembly-line model of justice, however, insinuate that accommodating the rights of the accused merely interferes with the goal of crime control, because it “handcuffs” law enforcement officials, undermining their ability to fight crime (Wilson 1975).

According to law professor Herbert Packer, noted for his scholarly analysis of the crime control model and its due process counterpart, conservatives believe that the failure of law enforcement to bring criminal conduct under control leads to a breakdown in public order. To protect the public against crime, the criminal justice process should emulate an assembly-line conveyor belt, down which moves an endless stream of cases. The criminal screening process involves a series of routine operations: pre-arrest investigation, arrest, post-arrest investigation, preparation for trial, trial or entry of plea, conviction, and finally disposition, in which the case is closed. Assembly-line justice relies heavily on the ability of investigative and prosecutorial specialists who eventually reconstruct a tolerably accurate account of what actually took place in an alleged criminal event. After all the facts have been gathered and the suspect apprehended and indicted, the state has extreme confidence in proving its case against the accused; indeed, under ideal circumstances, convicting the guilty becomes mechanical and routine.

Liberals insist that the criminal justice process is not that simple. They turn to the due process model as an alternative to assembly-line justice, pointing to the possibilities of human error and the frailty of authority under pressure. Whereas the crime control model pursues factual guilt, the due process paradigm emphasizes legal guilt, adhering to the rules of criminal procedure outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put, law enforcement officials ought not violate the constitutional rights of the accused in their efforts to secure a conviction. Even if the assembly-line model produces a high volume of convictions, the ends do not justify the means (Silver 1974; Skolnick 1994).

...