I was making the point that just becaues we did something before doesn't mean that it's okay to do it now. The exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment. The rationale for the exclusionary rule that was given by the courts was unclean hands. New evidence is termed ' fruit of the poisonous tree,' which refers to evidence tainted by an unconstitutional seizure. Justice does not prevail everywhere else, why should it here? A number of studies and testimonies by police officers support this contention. After introduction, problem statement is defined.
When it is a choice between allowing a minor and temporary invasion of privacy and allowing criminals to rob us of our possible life, liberty and property 55,000 times a year or more, the choice becomes clear. Historically, the Exclusionary Rule serves as a remedy for understanding how evidence is obtained and could be inadmissible if illegal tactics were taken to gather the evidence. One of those rights was the protection from illegal searches and seizures. Because there are extensive rules that must be followed, taxpayers have to foot the bill for these procedures and this is money that could potentially be spent elsewhere. Because the rule is enforced by humans, it isn't perfect, but nothing else can be perfect either. The judge rules that you are guilty without a hearing.
Ohio 1961 that the United States Supreme court extended the exclusionary rule to all states. Words: 502 - Pages: 3. Finally, the first two criteria must have at least a slight coincidence with each other. Individuals are still legally protected without the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule remains preferable to other methods. Lawful punishment is just such a compromise; the exclusionary rule is not.
The bad methods refer to the actions of the investigators and the procedures that the investigators took while obtaining the evidence in question. This is an unfounded assumption based on an inapplicable analogy. My opponent, however, believes that it is okay for the police to blatantly ignore my rights, as long as they are punished afterwards--even though punishing them ex post facto doesn't help my rights at all. For understandable reasons then, numerous cases raising questions about Fourth Amendment. The bad methods refer to the actions of the investigators and the procedures that the investigators took while obtaining the evidence in question. While constitutional rights are very important, they are not always applicable.
Once the alternatives have been generated, student should evaluate the options and select the appropriate and viable solution for the company. The bad methods refer to the actions of the investigators and the procedures that the investigators took while obtaining the evidence in question. Officer W may also be disciplined by the department and can be fired from her job, depending upon departmental policy. What Are the Cons of the Exclusionary Rule? The author of this theory suggests that firm must be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and perfectly non sustainable. What Are the Pros of the Exclusionary Rule? It is invariably the best way to respect the rights of the individual. Criminal remedies against police misconduct, Petitioner argues, will not deter police from committing knock-and-announce violations because, as the stated in , 367 U. This rule serves mainly as a deterrent to police officers from misconduct.
Pro I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. The police later use this bug to incriminate me with something I said in the privacy of my home--where the police should not be without a warrant. The exclusionary rule is also designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, which is short of criminal prosecution in response to prosecutors and police who. In this analysis, it will state the costs and benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. The exclusionary rule is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
For example, claimants must be able to show their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. Ten seconds later police officers in full gear rush in detaining you saying that they have the right to enter to search your house and took you to the police station for questioning. Opponents argue that the exclusionary rule has strayed from its original purpose, and that it no longer does what it was originally intended to. Without the exclusionary rule being enforced by the court system the fourth amendment would stand as a mere suggestion, allowing law enforcement to possibly use evidence obtained illegally to be used against the accused person. Ohio involving the original charge of illicit pornography possession helped to create what is known as the exclusionary rule, which says that evidence which is unconstitutionally seized can't be presented at trial, something ruled upon by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
With the growing problem of police misconduct, the exclusionary rule was put in place to curb this misconduct. Evidence deemed to be prejudicial, or likely to lead the jury to an unwarranted conclusion, is left out, along with any other poorly gathered evidence. We lawfully punish people for crimes like murder and bank robbery, yet those crimes continue to happen. The exclusionary rule prevents evidence that was obtained by bad methods to be used in a court of law, no matter how incriminating the evidence is to the defendant. The meaning is of the exclusionary rule is different than what it is actually intended to be used for. Although this is the least expensive and most expedient alternative, its effectiveness is questionable. What are the expectations of the rule? It diminishes respect for the judicial process and generates disrespect for the law and the administration of justice.