With the exclusionary rule it gives the criminal a fair trial, instead of a fix trial that will send a man or women to prison from more evidence found illegally. I feel this is an important rule to have in our laws. What can be ascertained as a result from these two passages of legal opinion delivered by the highest court in the land is that the reason we have and adhere to the exclusionary rule is in order to defend our basic constitutional rights.
The exclusionary rule can trace its origins to the fourth amendment, which protects us from illegal searches and seizures. My Should the exclusionary rule be abolished to that is no. Any questions, please email me.
The Reagan administration asked Congress to ease the rule, but not to abolish it. If only things were that simple. The first objection is a common sense rationale that the function of the exclusionary rule is to let the guilty go free on the grounds that the evidence collected against the defendant was done so illegally.
I believe the exclusionary rule is a very good law, it gives the people there right to life, liberty, and property. The exclusionary rule is one of the fundamental ways the rights of the all people are protected.
However, none of them separate nor all of them together constitute a valid case for the abolition of the exclusionary rule. This principle was articulated by Justice Day in the following passage: In fact, there are few rules that are as useful in protecting the rights of the general public. Mainly the rule is to protect you from police power.
The point at which most desire to attack the exclusionary rule is that it enables those who are found with incriminating items to walk free. If the rule was abolished we will see sometimes innocent people put in jail just because the law enforcement officer thought they were a criminal.
There are several objections to the exclusionary rule, and some of them effectively point out the shortcomings thereof. Opponents of the exclusionary rule perceive its gains to be dubious; its costs overwhelming. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police officials to obtain evidence without violating the rights of the accused.
The reason we make such a priority out of protecting the rights of the accused is for a very specific and simple reason: United States set a precedent for a manner in which the judicial system can effectively enforce the fourth amendment. Therefore the criminal acts that they already were working towards putting against you have now been more than likely doubled, because the evidence they found will be presented in court and will go as counts to your sentence.
However, there are some that would prefer that we not bother with said protection, and exchange our personal rights to privacy for a safer society. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures Unfortunately, there are many who believe, for a number of reasons that the exclusionary rule does more harm than good, and that American society suffers needlessly for the sake of protecting the rights of those who violate its laws.
You will see a lot of evidence brought up in court that never insisted in the reports. The most ardent critics of the exclusionary rule underestimate the good done by the rule, while appealing to commonly held paranoia of losing a war on crime in order to exaggerate its weaknesses.
If the exclusionary rule was abolished you will more than likely see police brutality on the rise. If the law finds that the evidence obtained was done so illegally then the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law.Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished?
John Doe University of Phoenix Criminal Procedure CJA Mr. Instructor Feb 07, Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished? Does the exclusionary rule protect the guilty? For years people have argued if the exclusionary rule is significantly helping the rather obvious criminal.
Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished? Since the introduction of the exclusionary rule, many debates have raged about whether or not it should be in place in our justice system. The exclusionary rule was set in place to protect citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures.
Feb 16, · After Hudson and Herring, critics of the exclusionary rule have high hopes that the Roberts court will take the ultimate step of overruling Mapp v. Ohio. That would be a great setback for the rule of law. Despite Justice Scalia’s claims, police misconduct is rampant. Should the Exclusionary Rule Be Abolished?
1 Should the Exclusionary Rule Be Abolished? Should the Exclusionary Rule Be Abolished? 2 The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early s. Before the rule was in place, any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant/5(1). With the exclusionary rule it gives the criminal a fair trial, instead of a fix trial that will send a man or women to prison from more evidence found illegally.
I feel this is an important rule to have in our laws, even though they haven’t abolished the exclusionary rule they still are trying to modify it. Exclusionary rule shames officers and should be abolished Police officers should be trusted enough to go through houses of those who are suspected of committing crimes and respectfully search them.
The Fourth Amendment was originally created to defend us from foreign armies stationed in America, coming into our homes and taking our things without reason.Download