There is risk involved in the decision making process. In many cases, individuals are required to rate the risk of one position against the other, to determine which risk is greater, before making a decision. This thesis explores the differences in how the mass public and elites (the Founding Fathers and modern lawyers) evaluate the risky choice involved in taking a position on the role of due process in American society. Utilizing contextual analysis and survey research, the thesis determines whether the groups hold a view of due process as paramount within society or as a danger to public safety, and the consistency of that viewpoint dependent on framing of situations. The results indicate that a mass-elite dichotomy does exist; the conclusion of the thesis suggests this as a possible explanation for why the masses can be swayed by ideological linguistics.