Crime Control Versus Due Process Models of Criminal Justice
When discussing larger issues such as The Criminal Justice System of America, so often that larger issue is comprised of a myriad of contributing issues that must be addressed. All too often these issues cross the boundaries of the codified models. When we approach the laudable goals of crime control, specifically the burden to keep our citizens safe from criminal abuses, we speak of appropriate penalties for breaking laws, deterrents and “the repression of criminal conduct” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 19). The tenets of the due process model are also very worthy. As a reasonable person, I value the protection of individual rights, specifically since it figures so largely in Scripture. As an example, in Proverbs 31:9 we are told to “defend the rights of the poor and needy” and Leviticus 19:15 tells us to “not be partial to the poor or defer to the great” (English Standard Version, 2014). I also think that a person’s circumstances should factor into the evaluation of the offense and that just as God’s redemption is available to all who choose to receive it, so, too, redemption, or rehabilitation, should be offered more often than it is denied.

The Question of Balance in the Criminal Justice System
One of the hallmarks of the United States justice system is supposed to be its systems of checks and balances with important contributions from citizens of the community, both in our style of government as well as in our criminal justice system. The degree to which a system is in balance is dependent upon the degree to which each factor of that system is functioning properly. I think that there are too many times when the justice system is unbalanced, whether from a District Attorney’s office driven by the concern of electability and public good will, to judges who have allowed their personal biases or