Upholding the Rule of Law Irrespective of Criminal Procedures

Criminal Procedure

Chief Justice Earl Warren had a political background, unlike his counterpart Justice William. He is one of the chief justices in the U.S. who had a significant influence on the criminal procedures offered by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He brought in the notion of strong belief in the remedial power of the law. He had a pragmatic view of the law, something he used in influencing the Supreme Court. He made the court accept the idea of using the law as a weapon of accessing fairness and equity (Wilson, 2012). The Warren's courts criminal procedures were focused on ethical principles and not interpretive structures that were narrow. He viewed the handling and descriptions of the narrower interpretive structures as patterns of reasoning that were conventional. He made rejections of them as with the case like Brown v. Board of Education, Reynolds v. Sims and Miranda v. Arizona. He used principles that were viewed by many as intuitive, political, and not legal in a conventional and technical sense (Hensley, 2006).

In Warren's case, the court procedures assumed observation of consensus. This was applied when the cases were most controversial. For instance, some of the cases that attracted this point-of-view were the Brown v. Board of Education case. This case, among others of the same nature, had unanimous decisions (Acker & Brody, 2013). During his tenure, the court offered decisions that are still attracting lots of debates. Some of the rulings addressed aspects like school segregation, over which he declared it constitutional, separation of state and church, and the free will to express among the people. The court has an expanse of the freedom of expression with use of the law. He used the law as a tool that gives people freedom for social and political reform (Hensley, 2006). The criminal procedure was even revolutionized during his tenure. He brought to an end the malapportionment that was directed at state legislatures and other institutions of representation. Throughout his tenure, the American culture was developed. Although he was criticized for mistreating other sections like driving "God" out of the schools and filling the country with smut, his idea of the law as a tool for freedom among the people influenced the court procedures (Hensley, 2006).

While in the court procedures, Warren altered some criminal procedures under the court. With the use of the Griffin v. Illinois (1956), he introduces the need for the states to furnish any impoverished criminal defendant with a copy of the proof adduced at the trial. Using the Miranda v. Arizona (1967) case, Warren wanted the counsel to afford to the indigent before interrogation as contained in the Bill of Rights. Further chances affixed in the rulings' were protection against unreasonable search and seizure of the 14th amendment to the activities of the state (Wilson, 2012).

Criminal procedure by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist

The Supreme Court process under Chief Justice William can be compared with that of Warren. William had an activist approach to the court. During his tenure, he had some activities that characterized the approaches of the Supreme Court in serving the public. He advocates the doctrines of judicial restraint, defense of the state, and restrictions on the existing federal law. Through his leadership, the court had acquired a conservative approach. In his court jurisprudence, William advocated for a constitutional criminal procedure that takes the center stage in any court process (Wilson, 2012). He advocated for law and order. He advocated and made the court have a strong trust in the adversary jury trial since it was the only vehicle of justice. He supported the expansion of the right to counsel while also supporting the court procedures that were promoted by Warren. Nonetheless, he defied the exclusionary rule basing on the facts that it deprived the adversary the process of relevant, evidence, and critical possibilities. He believed that the "reasonableness" of the search and not the police's ability to discern and subdue confusions of the court should be the stronghold inquiry affixed in the 4th amendment (Acker & Brody, 2013).

Comparison