Different Criminal Justice Systems, Essay Example

Before comparing and contrasting the conflict and consensus models, it is first necessary to understand the underlying adversarial and inquisitorial systems of justice. The adversarial system is usually found in countries with a common law tradition and is based on a contest between the prosecution and the defence to either present verifiable evidence or to falsify the evidence or the testimony of the other side. The emphasis in this system is not on facts, but testing the evidence. In such a system, the judge is merely a referee who ensures that the proper rules of evidence are adhered to. In an inquisitorial system the emphasis is on establishing the facts of the case. The system is consensual in that the judge plays a dominant role in gathering evidence and working with the various parties to establish the facts of the case.

The consensus model is theoretically correct as all law enforcement agencies of the government and Justice departments at both federal and state level are expected to work together in solving crime and ensuring justice. The more serious the crime the more true this tends to be. Therefore in the wake of 9/11 all agencies worked together to deal with the aftermath. The subsequent Homeland Security Department has gone further in getting all law enforcement agencies to coordinate with each other. On a more basic level however the prosecution, defence and presiding judge cooperate in the plea bargaining process on a daily basis so as to ease the passage of case through the courts. Ninety percent of all criminal cases in the USA are disposed of by this method. (Lynch 2003)

The two models are inaccurate in describing the US criminal justice system because neither gives a definitive description of how the system works. For example the system may be consensual in the way that the plea bargaining process works, however not the way the actual trial process works. Also the tendency of law enforcement and intelligence officials to not share information at all levels has been a recurring problem. There are therefore elements of both models in the justice system and consequently no one model can therefore claim to definitively define the workings of the system.

The criminal justice system is deliberately differentiated in the sense that each stage in the justice system is handled by a different person or agency. This is to achieve justice by ensuring for example, that the person arresting you isn’t the same person prosecuting you.  Each stage of the process is therefore handled by someone who is at least quasi independent of anyone else within the system. The various stages are: the arresting police officer; the sergeant who decides on whether or not to charge or warn the accused; correctional institutes for juveniles; the district attorney who decides whether there is sufficient evidence to take the case to court; to the prosecuting and defence attorneys, to the independent jury which decides on guilt or innocence, and finally to the presiding judge who passes sentence in the event of a guilty verdict.

Bibiography

Criminal Justice Today [online] available at http://instruct.westvalley.edu/smith/aj1handouts/gaines_chapter1.pdf accessed on Wednesday 20 July 2011

Lynch, T. (2003) The Case Against Plea Bargaining [online] available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf accessed on Wednesday 20 July 2011