Earl Warren

Crime Control and Due Process Models Earl Warren's involvement in the American Justice system played an important role in shaping American history as a whole. Warren was Chief Justice of the U.S. between 1953 and 1969 -- a period filled with significant events in the country's history.

As a consequence, Warren was provided with the mission to play an active role in many of these respective events that was responsible for making decisions that would reflect on the whole country rather than just on the individuals who took part in the trial. Connection between the Due Process Model and Warren's decisions The Due Process Model is characteristic to Warren's decisions, considering that the American Chief Justice focused on fighting for people's rights.

Initially thought to be a moderate conservative and to thus act in agreement with Eisenhower's thinking in general, Warren gradually proved to be a determined liberal. Eisenhower actually chose to elect Warren as a Chief Justice of the U.S.

because he "represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme CourtHe has a national name for integrity, uprightness, and courage that, again, I believe we need on the Court." (Eisenhower in Schulman 22) Warren mainly managed to act in disagreement with what Eisenhower expected from him as a result of his tendency to focus on liberal ideas more than on ideas that addressed the well-being of the country as a whole.

He appeared to be fueled by his interest in helping people on an individual level rather than helping the country while ignoring persons whose rights were taken away from them. Eisenhower apparently hated Warren's attitudes toward the legal system and believed that appointing him Chief Justice was one of the worst mistakes that he performed during his administration (Eisenhower in Schulman 23). The Brown v. Board of Education case is essential in putting across Warren's involvement in controversial matters.

The case ended up generating a decision that desegregated public schools and that eventually enabled non-white individuals (African-Americans in particular) to be able to attend schools depending on their interests instead of on their skin color. By declaring school segregation unconstitutional, Warren was able to influence law enforcement officers throughout the country to change their understanding of the system. While they previously were unhesitant about openly discriminating African-Americans, they gained a more complex understanding of the situation and they acknowledged that it was wrong to put across such behaviors.

Other Supreme Court cases that Warren presided over were similarly effective in making moral values more appreciated in the U.S. Loving v. Virginia legalized marriages between individuals with different skin colors while Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona provided defendant with more rights.

Most of these cases were meant to emphasize Warren's position on the justice system: he believed that the authorities were inclined to abuse both guilty and innocent individuals and that something thus needed to be done in order to make trials and punishments as fair as possible.

Operational differences between the due process model and the crime control model In contrast to the due process model (that promotes the idea that the authorities need to focus on factors like a person's life, liberties, and property when dealing with the respective individual) the crime control model takes on a harsher attitude toward crime in general. It is aimed at fighting crimes through all means available, even if this means that defendants are not going to be provided with a fair treatment.

The crime control model is based on the assumption that law enforcement officers are perfect and that everything they decide needs to be considered when dealing with a criminal. In such a situation, a jurist would have to act in agreement with decisions these individuals make without questioning them. This means that criminals are always considered guilty in this context and they are always treated as if they were guilty. The primary purpose of the crime control model is to catch and punish offenders.

The rationale behind this type of action is to discourage criminal behaviors and to thus control criminal activities. Certainty is an important factor when considering this model, as investigators leave from the premise that the suspect is guilty and, as a consequence, focus on producing any kind of information that can actually verify this. The crime model is based on non-adjudicative fact finding that is generally produced by prosecutors or law enforcement officers.

The due process model generally aims to protect the interests of innocent people, with suspects who end up being innocent standing as one of the primary reasons why this model is present in many legal environments. By respecting individual rights, individuals promoting this model employ a type of skepticism with regard to people's accountability for diverse crimes. In many cases suspects are found to be innocent and law enforcement officers thus need to be able to employ fair treatment techniques when dealing with all suspects, regardless of their status.

Model currently in effect in the U.S. There is much controversy about the model that is currently in effect in the U.S. And this is largely due to the fact that a great deal of law enforcement officers and legal representatives prefer to use both of them depending on the case they are dealing with.

These people try to fight crime by combining the two models in ways that both address the idea that the suspect is likely to be a criminal and the concept that he or she needs to be treated fairly. The Civil Rights era was a key period displaying the way that the due process model could change the legal landscape in the U.S. With Earl Warren as a Chief Justice, criminal procedures started to be addressed from a constitutional point-of-view.

The Supreme Court during the 1960s developed a habit to employ a form of policing for law enforcement officers themselves. This was obviously aimed at influencing these people to behave as legally as possible and to make the masses feel less inclined to believe that the system did not care about their rights. Many currently refer to this period as the Due Process Revolution of the 1960s (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten 5).

A great deal of individuals considered that the due process revolution was exaggerated and that it influenced the justice system to employ less effective methods to apprehend criminals. Things gradually changed consequent to Warren's term as a Chief Justice,.