What extent does the federalization of state crimes cut across traditional values as represented in the crime control and due process models?
To me, federalization of state crimes does not cut across any of the values that Packer identifies as common to both of his models. Federalization may violate other constitutional values, but it does not violate the values that Packer says both models adhere to.
Let me show why this is so by listing the values that are (to Packer) common to both models:
- Government must define what is criminal and stick to it -- no ex post facto laws.
- Government officials must not let accused criminals go just on a whim -- people who act in certain ways must be at least brought to trial.
- There are limits on what government can do -- things like the 4th Amendment. America is not a police state where the authorities can just do whatever they want.
- Accused people get their "day in court" with an attorney in an adversarial system.
If you look at this list, you will see that none of the 4 values is violated by federalization per se. The mere fact that the federal government, not a state, is prosectuing a crime does not go against any of these values.
For whatever reason, I can't make this show up in the links, but here is a link to a Word version of Packer's article in which he lays out these values:
If that doesn't work, you can Google "packer two models of the criminal process" and get this same link yourself.