The whole process, regardless of the country, is fraught with pitfalls and subject to criticism. Prejudice and discrimination are a pervasive threat to objective decision-making. Any harm to lawyers, judge or jury threatens to destroy the credibility of the court. Some argue that the often byzantine rules governing court behavior and trials limit a layman`s ability to participate, essentially reducing the legal process to a fight between lawyers. In this case, it is criticized that the decision is based less on solid justice than on the eloquence and charisma of the lawyer. This is a particular problem if the lawyer works inferiorly. Jury trial is another area that is often criticized because there are few mechanisms to protect against poor judgment or incompetence by lay jurors. Judges themselves are very prone to bias that is subject to ordinary things like the time that has elapsed since their last break. [11] The functional study of criminal justice differs from criminology, which involves the study of crime as a social phenomenon, the causes of crime, criminal behaviour and other aspects of crime. It emerged as an academic discipline in the 1920s, beginning with Berkeley Police Chief August Vollmer, who established a criminal justice program at the University of California, Berkeley in 1916. [15] Vollmer`s work was continued by his student O.W. Wilson, who led efforts to professionalize policing and reduce corruption. Other programs have been established in the United States at Indiana University, Michigan State University, San Jose State University, and the University of Washington.

[16] In 1950, the number of criminal justice students was estimated at less than 1,000. [ref. needed] Until the 1960s, criminal justice in the United States focused on policing and police science. The anti-crime model emphasizes an effective system, the most important function being to suppress and control crime to ensure the security of society and the existence of public policies. In this model, the fight against crime is more important for individual freedom. This model is a more conservative perspective. To protect society and ensure that individuals feel safe from the threat of crime, the anti-crime model would call for prompt and severe punishment of offenders. According to this model, the judicial process could resemble an “assembly line”: persons suspected by law enforcement arrest suspects; the courts decide on guilt; And the guilty receive appropriate and severe sentences through the prison system.

[2] The crime-fighting model can be more of an advocacy, as litigation can take too long and slow down the process. The most publicly visible form of punishment in modern times is prison. Prisons can serve as detention centers for prisoners after trial. Prisons are used to contain the accused. Early prisons were mainly used to arrest criminals, and little attention was paid to the living conditions within their walls. In America, the Quaker movement is generally credited with the idea that prisons should be used to reform criminals. It can also be seen as a critical moment in the debate about the purpose of punishment. Both models have several advantages and disadvantages; However, some groups and individuals are more likely to take sides than the other. The idea that these models could fit into policy lines is often based on previous court decisions as well as campaign approaches in the United States.

The crime-fighting model is used to promote policies that allow the system to toughen its tone, expand police powers, change punitive practices such as the creation of “three strikes,” and more. The due process model can promote policies that require the system to focus on individual rights. These rights may include an obligation for police to inform detainees that they do not have to answer questions with a lawyer (Miranda v. Arizona), to provide counsel for all defendants (Gideon v. Wainwright), or to close private prisons, which often violates the rights of inmates. Execution or the death penalty is still used worldwide.