Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-2bgxn Total loading time: 0.266 Render date: 2022-12-06T12:04:20.633Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Packer in Context: Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

Herbert Packer's

The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968) has spawned decades of commentary. This essay argues that Packer's two‐model conceptualization of the criminal process is best understood within his professional milieu of doctrinal legal scholarship and the political context of the Warren Court revolution. Within this context, the essay suggests a distinction between two due process visions: formalism and fairness. This distinction is useful for illuminating debates and decisions on criminal procedure matters in the Supreme Court such as Terry v. Ohio (1968) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). I conclude by encouraging sensitivity to legal and historical context in future commentary on Packer's framework.

Type
Review Essay
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Amar, Akhil Reed. 1998. Terry and Fourth Amendment First Principles. St. John's Law Review 72 (3–4): 1097–131.Google Scholar
Arenella, Peter. 19831984. Rethinking the Functions of Criminal Procedure: The Warren and Burger Courts' Competing Ideologies. Georgetown Law Journal 72 (2): 185248.Google Scholar
Aviram, Hadar, and Portman, Daniel L. 2009. Inequitable Enforcement: Introducing the Concept of Equity into Constitutional Review of Law Enforcement. Hastings Law Journal 61 (2): 413–57.Google Scholar
Baker, Donald I., and Blumenthal, William. 1983. The 1982 Guidelines and Preexisting Law. California Law Review 71 (2): 311–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckett, Katherine. 1997. Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beloof, Douglas Evan. 1999. The Third Model of Criminal Process: The Victim Participation Model. Utah Law Review 1999 (2): 289331.Google Scholar
Bibas, Stephanos. 2001a. Apprendi and the Dynamics of Guilty Pleas. Stanford Law Review 54 (2): 311–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bibas, Stephanos. 2001b. Apprendi's Perverse Effects on Guilty Pleas under the Guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter 13:333–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bibas, Stephanos. 2001c. Judicial Fact‐Finding and Sentence Enhancements in a World of Guilty Pleas. Yale Law Journal 110 (7): 1097–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, Abraham S. 1969. Review of The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert L. Packer. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 117 (5): 790–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, John, and Pettit, Philip. 1992. Not Just Desert: A Republican Theory of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2007. Federal Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/fjsst/2007/tables/fjs07st101.pdf (accessed October 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Charles, William H. R. 1970. Review of The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert Packer. University of Toronto Law Journal 20 (1): 109–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cord, Robert L. 19751976. Neo‐incorporation: The Burger Court and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fordham Law Review 44 (2): 215–48.Google Scholar
Cray, Ed. 2008. Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Damaska, Mirjan. 1973. Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121 (3):506–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Joshua, and Thomas, George III. 2006. Criminal Procedure: Principles, Policies, and Perspectives, 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
Dudley, Earl C. Jr. 1998. Terry v. Ohio, the Warren Court, and the Fourth Amendment: A Law Clerk's Perspective. St. John's Law Review 72 (3–4): 891904.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Thomas, Gunther, Gerald, Mann, J. Keith, Sher, Byron D., and Chairman, John Henry Merryman. 1972. Memorial Resolution: Herbert L. Packer, Stanford Historical Society, http://histsoc.stanford.edu/pdfmem/PackerH.pdf (accessed October 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Eisenstein, James, and Jacob, Herbert. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Hoekstra, Valerie, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 1998. Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Journal of Politics 60 (3): 801–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. 1979a. Pleading Guilty in Lower Courts. Law & Society Review 13 (2): 461–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. 1979b. The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Findley, Keith A. 2009. Toward a New Paradigm of Criminal Justice: How the Innocence Movement Merges Crime Control and Due Process. Texas Tech Law Review 41 (1): 133–74.Google Scholar
Foote, Caleb. 1956. Vagrancy‐Type Law and Its Administration. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 104 (3): 603–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, Daniel H. 1992. The Benevolent Paternalism of Japanese Criminal Justice. California Law Review 80 (2): 317–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golding, M. P. 1971. Review of The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert Packer. Philosophical Review 80 (1): 117–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Abraham S. 1973. Reflections on Two Models: Inquisitorial Themes in American Criminal Procedure. Stanford Law Review 26 (4): 1009–26.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joseph. 1960. Police Discretion Not to Invoke the Criminal Process: Low‐Visibility Decisions in the Administration of Justice. Yale Law Journal 69 (4): 543–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, James E. 1995. Stories of Scottsboro. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Griffiths, John. 1970a. Ideology in Criminal Procedure, or a Third “Model” of the Criminal Process. Yale Law Journal 79 (3): 359417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, John. 1970b. The Limits of Criminal Law Scholarship. Review of The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert Packer. Yale Law Journal 79 (7): 1388–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griset, Pamala L. 1991. Determinate Sentencing: The Promise and the Realities of Retributive Justice. Albany, NY: SUNY Albany Press.Google Scholar
Heumann, Milton. 1981. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hrvatin, Adriano. 2001. United States v. Nordby: Ninth Circuit Survey—Case Summary. Golden Gate University Law Review 31 (1): 105–22.Google Scholar
Jareborg, Nils. 1995. What Kind of Criminal Law Do We Want? In Beware of Punishment: On the Utility and Futility of Criminal Law, ed. Snare, Annika, 1745. Oslo: Pax Forlag.Google Scholar
Kalman, Laura. 2005. Yale Law School and the Sixties: Revolt and Reverberations. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Al. 1969. Review of The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert Packer. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 117 (4): 640–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Lewis R. 20042005. Terry v. Ohio at Thirty‐Five: A Revisionist View. Mississippi Law Journal 74 (2): 423500.Google Scholar
King, Michael. 1981. The Framework of Criminal Justice. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
King, Nancy J., and Klein, Susan R. 2001. Apprendi and Plea Bargaining. Stanford Law Review 54 (2): 295310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, Richard A. 1996. Miranda's Revenge: Police Interrogation as a Confidence Game. Law & Society Review 30 (2): 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, Richard A. 2008. Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2009. Sunbelt Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart. 2008. Constructing a Framework for Criminal Justice Research: Learning from Packer's Mistakes. New Criminal Law Review 11 (2): 257311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclin, Tracey. 1998. Terry v. Ohio's Fourth Amendment Legacy: Black Men and Police Discretion. St. John's Law Review 72 (3–4): 1271–322.Google Scholar
McBarnet, Doreen J. 1981. Conviction: Law, the State and the Construction of Justice. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, Candace. 2003. The Politics of Problem‐Solving: An Overview of the Origins and Development of Therapeutic Courts. American Criminal Law Review 40 (4): 1513–34.Google Scholar
Muir, William K. Jr. 1977. Police: Streetcorner Politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nardulli, Peter F. 1978. The Courtroom Elite: An Organizational Perspective on Criminal Justice. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Packer, Herbert L. 1958. Ex‐Communist Witnesses: Four Studies in Fact‐Finding. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Packer, Herbert L. 1964a. Two Models of the Criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 113:168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packer, Herbert L. 1964b. The Warren Report: A Measure of the Achievement. Nation, November 2, 295.Google Scholar
Packer, Herbert L. 1966. The Courts, the Police, and the Rest of Us. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 57 (3): 238–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packer, Herbert L. 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Roach, Kent. 1999. Four Models of the Criminal Process. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 89 (2): 671716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schur, Edwin M. 1965. Crimes without Victims: Deviant Behavior and Public Policy: Abortion, Homosexuality, Drug Addiction. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Adina. 19951996. Just Take away Their Guns: The Hidden Racism of Terry v. Ohio . Fordham Urban Law Journal 23 (2): 317–76.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Murray L. 1969. Review of The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert Packer. Stanford Law Review 21 (5): 1277–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebba, Leslie. 2006. Herbert Packer's Models of Criminal Justice in Historical Perspective. Paper presented at New Directions in Criminal Courtroom Research, Tel Aviv, Israel.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2007. Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skolnick, Jerome H. 1966. Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stickels, John W. 2008. The Victim Satisfaction Model of the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice Research and Education http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1370.pdf (accessed October 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Stith, Kate, and Cabranes, Jose A. 1998. Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sudnow, David. 1965. Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender's Office. Social Problems 12:255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundby, Scott E. 1998. An Ode to Probable Cause: A Brief Response to Professors Amar and Slobogin. St. John's Law Review 72 (3–4): 1133–40.Google Scholar
Whitebread, Charles H., and Slobogin, Christopher. 2006. Criminal Procedure: An Analysis of Cases and Concepts. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947).Google Scholar
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).Google Scholar
Almendarez‐Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).Google Scholar
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).Google Scholar
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 242 (1833).Google Scholar
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).Google Scholar
Community Release Board v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 3d 814 (1979).Google Scholar
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007).Google Scholar
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).Google Scholar
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).Google Scholar
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).Google Scholar
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999).Google Scholar
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007).Google Scholar
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Google Scholar
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S 1032 (1983).Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1986).Google Scholar
Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998).Google Scholar
People v. Begnald, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1548 (1991).Google Scholar
Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45 (1932).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007).Google Scholar
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).Google Scholar
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).Google Scholar
Whren et al. v. United States, 517 U.S 806 (1996).Google Scholar
5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Packer in Context: Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Packer in Context: Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Packer in Context: Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *