This paper examines the tension between the crime control model and the due process model in the American justice system, using Chief Justice Earl Warren's tenure (1953–1969) as a central case study. It traces how Warren's liberal judicial philosophy drove landmark decisions—including Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Gideon v. Wainwright—that entrenched due process protections for defendants and suspects. The paper contrasts the operational logic of both models, then surveys how the U.S. legal landscape shifted away from Warren-era protections during the Nixon administration and the subsequent "war on drugs" and "war on terror," concluding that neither model alone adequately addresses the demands of modern criminal justice.
Earl Warren's involvement in the American justice system played an important role in shaping American history as a whole. Warren served as Chief Justice of the United States between 1953 and 1969 — a period filled with significant events in the country's history. As a consequence, Warren was called upon to play an active role in many of those events, making decisions that would reflect on the entire country rather than solely on the individuals who took part in each case.
The due process model is characteristic of Warren's decisions, given that the Chief Justice focused consistently on protecting people's rights. Initially thought to be a moderate conservative who would act in agreement with Eisenhower's thinking, Warren gradually proved to be a determined liberal. Eisenhower chose to appoint Warren as Chief Justice because he "represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court. He has a national name for integrity, uprightness, and courage that, again, I believe we need on the Court" (Eisenhower, in Schulman 22).
Warren managed to act in disagreement with what Eisenhower expected largely because of his tendency to prioritize liberal ideas over those that addressed the well-being of the country at a more collective level. He appeared driven by an interest in helping people on an individual level rather than advancing the country's broader interests at the expense of those whose rights had been violated. Eisenhower apparently came to resent Warren's attitudes toward the legal system and believed that appointing him Chief Justice was one of the worst mistakes of his administration (Eisenhower, in Schulman 23).
The Brown v. Board of Education case is essential to understanding Warren's involvement in controversial matters. The decision desegregated public schools and ultimately enabled non-white individuals — African Americans in particular — to attend schools based on their interests rather than their skin color. By declaring school segregation unconstitutional, Warren was able to influence law enforcement officers throughout the country to revise their understanding of the system. Where they had previously been openly willing to discriminate against African Americans, they were compelled to acknowledge that such behavior was wrong.
Other Supreme Court cases that Warren presided over were similarly effective in elevating moral values within the American legal system. Loving v. Virginia legalized marriages between individuals of different races, while Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona expanded the rights of defendants. Most of these cases were meant to express Warren's position on the justice system: he believed that authorities were inclined to abuse both guilty and innocent individuals alike, and that something therefore needed to be done to make trials and punishments as fair as possible.
In contrast to the due process model — which promotes the idea that authorities must account for a person's life, liberties, and property when dealing with that individual — the crime control model takes a harsher attitude toward crime in general. It is aimed at fighting crime through all available means, even if this means defendants are not provided with fair treatment.
The crime control model rests on the assumption that law enforcement officers act correctly and that their decisions should be treated as authoritative when handling a criminal suspect. In such a framework, a jurist defers to the decisions of law enforcement without questioning them, and criminals are presumed guilty and treated accordingly. The primary purpose of the crime control model is to catch and punish offenders, with the rationale that doing so discourages criminal behavior and controls criminal activity. Certainty is a key feature of this model: investigators begin from the premise that the suspect is guilty and focus on producing information that confirms it. The crime control model relies on non-adjudicative fact-finding generally conducted by prosecutors or law enforcement officers.
The due process model, by contrast, aims primarily to protect the interests of innocent people. Suspects who ultimately prove innocent represent one of the central justifications for this model's presence in many legal environments. By respecting individual rights, proponents of this model employ a form of skepticism regarding a suspect's accountability, recognizing that in many cases suspects are found to be innocent and that law enforcement must therefore apply fair treatment to all suspects regardless of their perceived status.
"Shifts from due process toward crime control post-Warren"
The Civil Rights era was a key period demonstrating how the due process model could transform the legal landscape in the United States. With Earl Warren as Chief Justice, criminal procedures began to be addressed from a constitutional standpoint. The Supreme Court during the 1960s developed a practice of policing law enforcement officers themselves — an approach clearly aimed at encouraging legally compliant behavior and reassuring the public that the system respected their rights. Many scholars refer to this period as the Due Process Revolution of the 1960s (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten 5).
A significant number of observers believed that the due process revolution went too far and that it led the justice system to adopt less effective methods of apprehending criminals. Circumstances gradually shifted after Warren's tenure ended, with the Nixon administration in particular installing a "law and order" approach that employed more aggressive attitudes toward criminals. "In the last twenty-five years of the twentieth century, the 'war on drugs' led to an even greater shift away from many of the Warren Court's due process protections toward a renewed emphasis on crime control" (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten 6).
The United States appears to have reached an impasse once again regarding which model its justice system should employ to control criminal behavior. With the "war on terror" in full effect, it is often difficult for law enforcement officers to adopt a due process orientation. Doing so risks significant security consequences, and many therefore believe that the most prudent course is to achieve security through all available means, regardless of the effect such an approach may have on suspects.
Although it is widely regarded as the fairest approach available, the due process model has its limitations, and in many cases legal representatives must employ firm — sometimes harsh — measures in order to apprehend criminals and preserve social order. The ongoing tension between due process protections and crime control imperatives remains one of the defining challenges of the American justice system.
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.