There Are Two Opposing Models in Our Country of Due

There are two opposing models in our country of due process and crime control. Proponents for due process maintain that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be imprisoned. Crime control proponents argue that perpetrators of crime must pay for their crimes at all costs, even if their rights are violated. Do most due process advocates only care about the events leading up to the conviction? Do they not care as much after the conviction if the guilty criminal is subjected to harsh and unfair penalties? In other words, is the worry more about an innocent person being convicted or is it about fairness all the way through the system, even for child molesters, rapists, and murderers? If police made an appropriate arrest and the trial was completely fair and a person is convicted of 1^st degree murder, would due process proponents complain if the murderer was given 20 more years than a different murderer received on a prior case? What is your opinion?