Consensus or Conflict
Bryce Rice
Lindsey Wilson College
Consensus or Conflict
Does the criminal justice system in the U.S. work together in an effort to provide justice to the people or only towards its own interests? Many have and are still asking this question today. This isn’t without good reasoning either. Many have asked the question as to how the criminal justice system functions between the various actors that make up the criminal justice system. The perspective that questions the goals of the actors –the courts, police, and corrections– of the criminal justice system is called the conflict model. This model of the justice system suggests that the system’s components function primarily to serve their own interests. This means, according to this theory, justice is just a conflict among agencies within the system rather than a cooperative effort. Of course, this isn’t the only way of looking at the agencies of the criminal justice system. The other model for criminal justice is called the consensus model. The consensus model for criminal justice suggests that all criminal justice agencies work in harmony to achieve justice. This model is the way our criminal justice system should work in theory, but that’s not to say the conflict model doesn’t work as well. In the conflict model of criminal justice, the goals of opposing agencies will often be in conflict with one another to create competition between the agencies and promote success. So, even if it seems unlikely, both models work to some extent. The question that should be asked is whether or not a conflict model for criminal justice is necessary and should be kept, or if the consensus model for criminal justice should be better implemented.
Conflict Model of Criminal Justice
The ideal model for criminal justice would be if all jurisdictions used the consensus model. Even though that’s not the case it doesn’t mean the conflict model of the criminal justice system doesn’t work. In an article written by Malcolm M. Feeley called “Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective” Feely goes on to explain that the actors of the criminal justice system “share a responsibility in a common goal – that of processing arrests.” This might be the intended goal for the actors of the justice system but is not always the primary goal for everyone. For example, the police’s goal might be to solve many crimes, so the public will recognize that the police are keeping the streets clean. Then the courts might have a goal to reduce crowding in the prisons, so they might let some nonviolent prisoners off with parole. One major reason for separate goals within the justice system is due to the size of the justice system. Our criminal justice system today is extremely large, so the separation of a common goal is mostly due to the different actors with in the justice system needing to meet their own needs. This conflict of goals will most of the time push for success for individual agencies and a study on clearance rates done by a criminologist named Jerome H. Skolnick supports this. Skolnick discovered an instance in which a burglar was caught red-handed. After his arrest, the police suggested that he may confess to many unsolved burglaries. To encourage a confession the police said, “Help us out, and we will try to help you out!” The burglar ended up confessing to more that 400 unsolved burglaries. Following the confession, the police were satisfied because they could say they had “solved” many burglaries, and the suspect was pleased as well because the police and the prosecutor agreed to speak on his behalf before the judge. This is a perfect example of an actor in the criminal justice system meeting their own goals than just the goals of the system as a whole. The police didn’t have to vouch for the burglar or need a confession because they caught the burglar red handed, but in order for an ordinary arrest to loot like a big deal they made a deal with the burglar. Even though this wasn’t necessary it was definitely worth it because the police department will look better in the eyes on the community and the people within the community will feel safer knowing that the police are doing their jobs of keeping criminals off the streets.
Consensus Model of Criminal Justice
Even though a conflict model system might seem like an ideal model for criminal justice there is a reason the justice system tries to implement a consensus model over it. Think of our justice system as machine, the goal of a machine is for every part to work together to perform a task and meet a common goal. This is basically how a consensus model work. Every part of the criminal justice system works together to better serve justice. The problem with this model is that machines work with precision and can perform task near perfectly. Our justice system hasn’t come close to accomplishing this yet. If our justice system still hasn’t accomplished its goal of implementing a consensus model it begs the question, why are we still trying? In a book wrote by Rosett and Cressey called “JUSTICE BY CONSENT- PLEA BARGUNS IN THE AMERICAN COURT HOUSE,” Rosett and Cressy go on to explain, “Even in the adversary world of law, men who work together and understand each other eventually develop shared conceptions of what are acceptable, right and just ways of dealing with specific kinds of offenses, suspects and defendants.” This is saying that in the world of law, even if a common goal is not always implemented across all parts of the justice system, if the system keeps working towards establishing a system that works together then the goals of the justice system will always be just. This is why we can’t be content with a conflict model of justice. Even though it might promote better performance out of some actors within the justice system at times, if it was the only kind of model our justice system went off, then the goals of the justice system would eventually not be justice but just goals that interest the actor itself. Without a consensus model to work towards, our justice system, in time, would no longer work for the people to implement justice but would only work for the people if it meant the that actor was going to be able to help itself as well. This still doesn’t suggest that we shouldn’t have a conflict model of justice.
Complexity of the Criminal Justice System
Even though a consensus model would be the ideal model of justice, it will probably never be the sole model of the criminal justice system. this is because in order for our criminal justice system to work only off of a consensus model, it would have to work with perfect precision. This means correcting its mistakes quickly, operating fast, smooth, and being predictable. This is a goal that is mostly possible to achieve but will never be completely achievable due to the pure size of our criminal justice system. In an article called “Conceptualizing Criminal Justice Theory” written by Thomas J. Bernard and Robin Shepard Engel of Pennsylvania State University, Bernard and Engel say that “It may be that the criminal justice system as a whole is so diverse and complex that meaningful theories spanning the system are impossible to formulate.” What Bernard and Engel are saying in this is that, even though a consensus or conflict theory might be a good way of describing our criminal justice system there isn’t just one way that our criminal justice system can be described. It is so complex that there will never be our criminal justice system runs just on the basis of a consensus model or just a conflict model. The only way it can run is with both and maybe some other model that hasn’t even been thought of yet. The best way to describe our criminal justice system would be that it is a conflict model system that is always in the process of becoming a consensus model system. Even then this doesn’t even begin to fully explain the criminal justice system.
Consensus and Conflict Models Combined
Both the conflict and consensus theories of criminal justice promote the overall goal of the criminal justice system. The consensus model is a more efficient way of justice, in theory, but the conflict model has its perks as well. In a book written by authors George F. Cole, Christopher E. Smith, and Christina DeJong called “The American System of Criminal Justice,” the authors explain that “In reality, of course, no criminal justice official or agency functions according to one model or the other. Elements of both models appear throughout the system.” This is probably the best way the input of these two theories into the criminal justice system can be explained. There is really no possible way that the system could function with only one or the other but together significantly well. Of course, it’s not perfect but it is always improving and always changing. With the way our criminal justice system is set up to work, if one of the modeled theories, consensus or conflict, was used, then the system would fail over time. If a conflict model was only to be used then the values and priorities of the different actors within the criminal justice would change dramatically and the common goal of the criminal justice system could possibly be lost. On the other hand, a consensus model in theory would work perfect and that is exactly the problem. Our criminal justice system isn’t perfect and never will be so, how could you implement a perfect model for the operation of a system that is imperfect and never will be perfect. Of course, the criminal justice system should always be working towards perfection but to expect perfection would be a fool’s mistake. In any kind of system, the components of the system should, more than likely, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Both the consensus model and the conflict model of criminal justice are theories for the way the criminal justice system should work, even if nether one will probably ever be the sole way our criminal justice system works. The conflict model of criminal justice might not be ideal, but it can lead to some improvements of different actors within the justice system. And obviously, perfection is what any majorly complex system would want to achieve, even if it is impossible to reach. The one thing that is true about both theories of the criminal justice system is that parts of each model, consensus or conflict, coexist in today’s criminal justice system.
References
Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective, 7 Law & Soc'y Rev. 407 (1972)
Jerome H. Skolnick, Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement In Democratic Society, (New York: John Wiley, 1966)
JUSTICE BY CONSENT – PLEA BARGAINS IN THE AMERICAN COURTHOUSE, A ROSETT; D R CRESSEY, (1976)
Conceptualizing Criminal Justice Theory, Thomas J. Bernard, Robin Shepard Engel, Pennsylvania State University, (2001)
The American System of Criminal Justice, George F. Cole, Christopher E. Smith, and Christina DeJong