NCJ Number
73986
Date Published
1980
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This essay argues that in selecting program outcome variables, evaluators often fail to distinguish between crime control and social control objectives of the criminal justice system.
Abstract
In this context, social control is interpreted to be identical with scrupulous adherence to the letter and the spirit of Anglo-American law, which imposes procedural constraints on the potential arbitrariness of arrest and conviction. The crime control model, which emphasizes maximum effectiveness at minimum cost, is increasingly favored by criminal justice practitioners and is demanded by the public. However, the author of this essay favors the scrupulous application of procedural versus substantive justice, even though the preservation of procedural justice may entail some sacrifice of substantive justice and may even impact negatively on crime control. Evaluators often find themselves obliged to accept the conviction of criminal justice agents that effectiveness in crime control is the most desirable outcome of criminal justice programs, even when it may involve some sacrifice of procedural justice. The crime control model concentrates too many powers into the hands of some unspecified justice system manager, in contrast to the due process model with its emphasis on the traditional American concepts of fairness and preservation of adversarial conduct of criminal justice. Methodological problems which arise in attempting to reconcile crime control and social control are already solved within the conceptual framework of the criminal law. Evaluators must consider both crime control and social control as appropriate outcome variables because they rank equally as expected system outputs of the criminal justice system. Six endnotes and 32 references are appended.