Wrongful Convictions and Erroneous Acquittals: Applying Packer’s Model to Examine Public Perceptions of Judicial Errors in Australia

• Author: Harley Williamson,Mai Sato,Rachel Dioso-Villa
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211066826
• Published date: 01 June 2023
• Date: 01 June 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211066826

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(8) 783 –802

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211066826

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Wrongful Convictions

and Erroneous Acquittals:

Applying Packer’s Model to

Examine Public Perceptions

of Judicial Errors in Australia

Harley Williamson1, Mai Sato2,

and Rachel Dioso-Villa1

Abstract

The fallible nature of the criminal justice system continues to see judicial errors—that

is, wrongful convictions and erroneous acquittals—undermine its integrity, efficacy,

and legitimacy. Public perceptions of judicial errors are important contributors to

criminal justice policy and reforms. The current study utilizes the 2016 Australian

Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) dataset to examine public attitudes toward

judicial errors. It applies Herbert Packer’s crime control and due process models

to understand how concerns around procedural safeguards and public safety are

associated with public perceptions toward judicial errors. Packer’s model has been

challenged by studies, which theorize that the models are not mutually exclusive.

Yet, they have not been empirically tested in this context, which is a gap this study

seeks to fill. Findings show that due process and crime control concerns shape public

attitudes toward wrongful convictions and challenge the notion that Packer’s models

be applied on a continuum.

Keywords

wrongful convictions, erroneous acquittals, crime control, due process, Herbert

Packer, miscarriages of justice, attitudes to criminal justice

1Griffith University - Mount Gravatt Campus, QLD, Australia

2Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Harley Williamson, Griffith University - Mount Gravatt Campus, 176 Messines Ridge Road, QLD 4122,

Australia.

Email: h.williamson@griffith.edu.au

1066826IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211066826International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyWilliamson et al.

research-article2021

784 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 67(8)

Introduction

The criminal justice system, by virtue of relying on human judgment to make deci-

sions, is inherently fallible. Resultantly, two types of errors can emerge: convicting an

innocent person (i.e., a wrongful conviction) or acquitting a guilty person (i.e., an

erroneous acquittal). Reducing or eliminating both errors is an arduous task, as dimin-

ishing the prevalence of one error often increases the rate of the other (Scurich, 2015;

Xiong et al., 2017). However, a rise in exonerations in recent years has demonstrated

how such goals may be achieved concurrently instead of being mutually exclusive

(Findley, 2008). The extent to which the public views both errors as detrimental to

how the criminal justice system functions is an avenue of inquiry with broad criminal

justice implications. This is because the prevalence of these errors can damage the

legitimacy of and confidence in criminal justice procedures (Forst, 2013), call into

question issues of public safety (Norris et al., 2020), and stimulate concerns around

individual justice (Ramsey & Frank, 2007).

Gauging public attitudes toward criminal justice issues is important because such

inquiries can spotlight the degree to which the public accepts how the criminal justice

system operates (Zalman et al., 2012). Moreover, public opinion research pertaining to

criminal justice issues, such as judicial errors, can stimulate dialog and, in some cases,

may effect changes in penal policy (Norris et al., 2020). This in turn can impact how

offenders are treated in the criminal justice system. Research has examined public

perceptions of punitive crime control policies (Unnever & Cullen, 2010), counter-ter-

rorism policies (Williamson, 2019), and the death penalty (Sato, 2014), to name a few.

However, public attitudes toward judicial errors remain largely under-researched (but

see de Keijser et al., 2014; Scurich, 2015; Xiong et al., 2017; Zalman et al., 2012;

Zhuo, 2021).

This study hypothesizes that public perceptions toward judicial errors are grounded

in an individual’s orientation toward due process or crime control—the two models of

the criminal justice system developed by Packer (1964). The crime control model is

predicated on suppressing the prevalence of crime and emphasizes the criminal justice

system’s efficiency to detect, process and convict guilty persons. Packer (1964) sug-

gests that an effective crime control model “must be an administrative, almost a mana-

gerial model. . .[akin to] an assembly line or a conveyor belt” (p. 11). Thus, this model

diminishes the importance of procedural safeguards and individual rights (Feeley,

1973). Conversely, the due process model is concerned with upholding individual

rights and ensuring transparency and impartiality through strict adherence to rules and

laws at all stages of the criminal justice process (Packer, 1964). Packer’s dichotomy

suggests that perceptions of the criminal justice system’s efficacy is determined by the

model an individual subscribes to (Feeley, 1973). In a similar vein, the level of sever-

ity an individual places on judicial errors may also be shaped by their preference for

crime control or due process.

Studies examining public perceptions toward both judicial errors have found cross-

national attitudinal differences. The most recent International Social Survey Program

(ISSP) conducted in 2016 gauged public opinion toward both types of judicial errors