Introduction
All judicial systems worldwide experience notable changes in structure and policies with the entry of new chief justices and the US is no exception. Appointment of a new chief justice undoubtedly introduces a belief center for the court. In the US the appointments of Earl Warren and William Rehnquist marked two major developments in the Supreme Court. The two chief justices were considered Republican, but their views on how decisions should be made were totally different. Warren developed a liberal approach while on the bench and Rehnquist was more conservative. The two perspectives have a significant influence on the jurisdiction of matters of civil rights and social order maintenance. These factors are critical in addressing America’s obsession with freedom and social change since the 1950s.
Chemerinsky (2005) posited that a chief justice can be assessed by looking at their ability to achieve the substantive vision of the law, which is often reflected in the decisions of their courts. Legacies of chief justices are dependent are embodied in decisions that provide a lasting framework for government. The field of constitutional law, particularly in the area of criminal procedure puts the judicial systems under a microscopic scrutiny. Criminal procedure generates conflicts in an attempt to preserve the rights and liberties of the accused and the necessity to investigate and prosecute crime by law enforcers. Earl Warren espoused a vision defined by a more equal society where individual rights and dignity were protected. The constitutionalization of the criminal procedure by the Warren courts in favor of the accused was slightly modified by the Rehnquist Court which limited its scope in order to strengthen law enforcement.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Warren Court Overlooked Social Order Maintenance by Emphasizing on Individual Liberties
Constitutional revision marked justices Warren and Rehnquist’s terms at the Supreme Court. The former instituted wholesale judicial reforms targeting criminal procedures while the latter reversed some of the sweeping changes to establish some degree of conservatism. According to Bloom (2010), the changes in the legal landscape caused by the Warren and Rehnquist courts generated significant controversy. The controversy specifically touches on the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, which has been a thorny issue for the Supreme Court over the years.
Warren’s Court perceived constitutionalization of the criminal procedure began with the application of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments against the states. The Warren Court used the doctrine of selective incorporation to apply almost all the rights protected in the Bill of Rights to the states. In what become to be known as the “Due Process Revolution”, Warren Court set the foundation of modern criminal procedure through a series of cases that altered related laws. Warren Court made the panoply of constitutional rights that cloaked the accused in theory a reality. The courts enforced the right of the accused to be protected from unlawful arrest, search or seizure; the privilege against self-incrimination; the right to assistance of a counsel a prompt and speedy trial by common-law jury, compulsory process for witnesses, and the right to confront witnesses testifying against the accused; and prohibition of excessive bail that targeted to advance a policy against pretrial incarceration (Pye, 1968, p. 249).
The criminal procedure was significantly altered by the Warren Court through landmark decisions and rulings. The Brady v. Maryland ruling required the prosecution to turn over all evidence that may assist in exonerating the defendant. The Mapp v. Ohio case ruled against the use of evidence obtained in violation of the right protected under the Fourth Amendment. Thee 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision on admissibility of inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in violation of the defendant’s right to consult with the attorney before or during questioning and the right to self-incrimination before questioning. These and other landmark rulings on the rights to access of an attorney throughout the criminal procedure, and protection from searches and seizures, were perceived by critics to accord the accused tenderness thus passing as watery sentiments causing obstruction, delays, and defeats in the successful prosecution of crime (Pye, 1968).
The Warren Court institutionalized activist reforms through emphasis on constitutional guarantees of rights of the defendant. Crime prevention efforts today require a human rights angle. However, the progressive stance was opposed by conservative Americans who criticized the Warren Courts of turning criminal cases to be pro-defendant, a practice that was perceived to favor criminals and created permissiveness towards crime. The legal community argued about the lack of concrete legal support and reasoning for rulings made by the Warren Court. In addition, some segments of the society expressed concerns about the tendency of Court decisions to free too many guilty individuals, among them murders and rapists. Overall, the Warren Court exalted liberties of defendants without regard for law enforcers. The doctrine made it difficult for the police to prosecute cases, causing disarray in social order maintenance.
Rehnquist Court Decisions Favored Law Enforcement
The difference in chief justice William Rehnquist’s doctrine to the criminal procedure is evident through initial attempts to counter the effects of Warren’s liberalism through the appointment of more conservative justices. Rehnquist Court approach was founded on the conception that the emphasis on constitutional rights of the accused by Warren Court was incapacitating to the maintenance of social order by law enforcers. Under the new criminal procedure, law enforcement and the criminal justice system were toothless in favor of the defendants (Hensley, Hale, & Snook, 2006). However, it is important to point out that given the significance of the Bill of Rights in criminal procedure, Rehnquist Court did not attempt to abolish the Warren legacy, but simply adjusted its scope to give more clout to the law enforcement.
Warren erred by placing too much emphasis on protection of the accused, and Rehnquist Court south to establish balance by giving back power to law enforcement and criminal justice system to ensure successful prosecution of cases. Rehnquist Court was largely anticipated to revert the criminal justice system back to the doctrine of law and order by countering decisions in Miranda and Mapp v. Ohio and others that handcuffed the police and freed the guilty (Smith, 2002). In Colorado vs. Connelly , Rehnquist ruled on the admissibility in court of the testimony of an individual evaluated as schizophrenic, thus limiting the decision by Warren in Miranda. Rehnquist, to a significant extent, countered Warren’s protectionist interpretation of Amendments on the Bill of Rights. Rehnquist ruled in favor of law enforcement in Michigan vs. Sitz by authorizing the police to stop vehicles to examine the influence of alcohol and drugs. According to Hensley et al. (2006), the Rehnquist Court argued that the government efforts to curb drug influence takes precedence over minor invasions of individual privacy.
The balance between individual liberties and public social order maintenance proved to be the point of contention between the two justices and their judicial doctrines. Warren receives criticism for overlooking the plight of law enforcement through decisions that led to difficulties in the maintenance of law and order. However, the constitutionalization of criminal procedure was called for, to jolt the criminal justice system into recognizing the need to treat suspects with decorum. Warren may have crossed the line, but the Court’s decisions and rulings set precedent for Rehnquist decisions that sought balance by giving back power to law enforcement. The decisions by the two courts are somehow complimentary when viewed from the need for balance between individual liberties and social order maintenance.
Current Approach to Balance Civil Liberties against Public Order Maintenance
The decisions by the two justices are a clear illustration of the lack of a common ground in balancing between maintenance of order and protection of civil liberties. The judicial system is facing a dilemma in deciding which of the two should be given precedence over the other. The situation is complicated by the rise in security concerns and crime level today coupled with the advances by civil rights movements. However, this does not imply that new doctrines are needed to address the issue of balance between the two.
The current criminal justice system uses both Warren soft approach to crime and Rehnquist conservative hard stance that favor the accused and law enforcement respectively. It is important to understand that policies that make law enforcement and prosecution of criminal cases easier are not necessarily an impediment to civil liberties. With the proliferation of bodies that perform the role of oversight for law enforcement, there is no need for tension between attaining the appropriate balance. The framers of the American Constitution did not guarantee specific civil rights that came later but emphasized on effective systems of checks on the government. Affirmative action for law enforcement to exercise their mandate within the confines of the law is used today to ensure a balance between individual liberties and maintenance of public order.
Conclusion
Warren Court decisions marked a significant shift in the US criminal procedure by factoring in the Bill of Rights. Evidently, the decisions of the court were influenced by Warren’s experiences during service as a law enforcement officer in the preceding years. Their understanding of the tribulations of the accused prompted an overhaul of the system that favored law enforcement. However, in their quest to incorporate civil liberties into the criminal justice system, Warren denied law enforcement the powers to prosecute criminal cases. Rehnquist’s decisions sought to counter some of these liberties by reverting some powers to the law enforcement to ensure public social order is realized.
References
Bloom, R. M. (2010). Cases on criminal procedure . Wolters Kluwer.
Chemerinsky, E. (2005). Assessing Chief Justice William Rehnquist. U. Pa. L. Rev. , 154 , 1331.
Hensley, T. R., Hale, K., & Snook, C. (2006). The Rehnquist Court: Justices, rulings, and legacy . ABC-CLIO.
Kamisar, Y. (2005). How Earl Warren's twenty-two years in law enforcement affected his work as Chief Justice. Ohio St. J. Crim. L. , 3 , 11.
Pye, A. K. (1968). The Warren Court and criminal procedure. Michigan Law Review , 67 (2), 249-268.
Smith, S. F. (2002). The Rehnquist Court and criminal procedure. U. Colo. L. Rev. , 73 , 1337.
