Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:29:06.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Malcolm M. Feeley
Malcolm M. Feeley*
Affiliation:
Yale Law School
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Despite the scholarly and popular interest in the administration of criminal justice, there are few theoretical discussions of the process. Consequently, this paper is an attempt to develop an explicit theoretical framework by which the practices in the administration can be depicted and explained. In it I characterize the criminal justice system in terms of the theory of large-scale organizations, and then examine some of the tasks of administration in terms of established concepts and criteria supplied by this perspective. Following Etzioni, by organization I mean “social units devoted primarily to the attainment of specific goals” (1961). In this case the formal task of the criminal justice system is to process arrests, determine guilt or innocence, and in the case of guilt to specify an appropriate sanction. The major actors in the organization include the defendant, prosecutor, defense counsel, judge, arresting officer, court clerk, and to varying degrees, other persons such as witnesses, additional policemen, clerks, parole officers, court psychiatrists and social workers, and the defendants' families and friends. A system of the administration of justice, whether it is adversarial or inquisitorial, entails the key elements of organization: institutionalized interaction of a large number of actors whose roles are highly defined, who are required to follow highly defined rules and who share a responsibility in a common goal — that of processing arrests.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Spring 1973 , pp. 407 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © The Law and Society Association, 1972.

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article is a revision of a paper prepared for delivery at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Conrad Hilton Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, September 9, 1971. I wish to acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation, through an institutional grant to New York University and the Graduate Arts and Science Research Fund of the Graduate School of New York University. Also, my thinking on this topic has benefited greatly from discussion with Susan White and Stefan Kapsch, and I must acknowledge my indebtedness to them.

References

BLAU, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, A. (1967) Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, A. (1967a) “The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game,” 1 Law and Society Review 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLE, G. (1970) “The Decision to Prosecute,” 4 Law and Society Review 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOWNS, A. (1967) Inside Bureaucracy. Inside Bureaucracy: Little Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ETZIONI, A. (1960) “Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion,” 5 Administrative Science Quarterly 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ETZIONI, A. (1961) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
ETZIONI, A. (1964) Modern Organization. Modern Organization: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
FEELEY, M. (1970) “Coercion and Compliance,” 4 Law and Society Review 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FRIEDMAN, L. (1966) “On Legalistic Reasoning —A Footnote to Weber,” 1966 Wisconsin Law Review 148–171.Google Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, A.S. (1960) “The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure,” 69 Yale Law Journal 1149–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, J. (1969) “Police Discretion Not to Invoke the Criminal Process: Low Visibility Decisions in the Administration of Justice,” 69 Yale Law Journal 543–594.Google Scholar
KAPSCH, S. (1971) The Adversary System and the Assistance of Counsel. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
KLONOSKI, J. and R., MENDELSOHN (eds.) (1970) The Politics of Legal Justice. The Politics of Legal Justice: Little Brown.Google Scholar
LEFSTEIN, N., V., STAPLETON, and L., TEITELBAUM (1969) “In Search of Juvenile Justice,” 5 Law and Society Review 491–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LLEWELLYN, K. (1960) The Common Law Tradition. The Common Law Tradition: Little Brown.Google Scholar
MAINE, H. (1963) Ancient Law. Ancient Law: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
MEDALIE, R.J., et al. (1968) “Custodial Police Interrogation in Our Nation's Capital: The Attempt to Implement Miranda,” 66 Michigan Law Review 1347–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MILESKI, M. (1971) “Courtroom Encounters,” 5 Law and Society Review 473–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAGEL, S. (1970) The Judicial Process from a Behavioral Perspective. Chicago: Dorsey.Google Scholar
PACKER, H. (1968) The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RAWLS, J. (1958) “Justice as Fairness,” 67 Philosophical Review 164–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHUBERT, G. (1965) The Judicial Mind. The Judicial Mind: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, J. (1966) Justice Without Trial. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, J. (1967) “Social Control in the Adversary System,” 11 Journal of Conflict Resolution 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHWARTZ, R.D. (1954) “Social Factors in the Development of Legal Control,” 63 Yale Law Journal 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHWARTZ, R.D. and J., MILLER (1964) “Legal Evolution and Societal Complexity,” 70 American Journal of Sociology 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WALD, M.S., al, et (1966) “Interrogations in New Haven: The Impact of Miranda,” 76 Yale Law Journal 1521–1648.Google Scholar
WEBER, M. (1954) “Rational and Irrational Administration of Justice,” in Max, RHEINSTEIN (ed.) Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar