Abolish Exclusionary Rule

Among the arguments in support of the exclusionary rule4 by its proponents are the following:

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that withholding evidence violated the process where the evidence is crucial either to guilt or to punishment. The court also determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant, but was material to the level of punishment he would be given.

which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search

This paper is strictly focused and based on the true events, Supreme Court cases that led to the exclusionary rule.

The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

In order for the rights listed in the Constitution to have substance, there must be enforceable remedies imposed on the government for violations of those rights. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Weeks v. United States,2 introduced the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment.3 The Weeks Court felt that the only effective way to enforce the Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was to adopt a rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used by the government against a defendant at trial. The Weeks Court further stated that a court should not sanction illegal government conduct by admitting into evidence the fruits of

“Since 1973, more than 155 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence” (the death penalty information center). The lives of many innocent people are being put at risk when prosecutors would “think” that a person have committed a certain crime and he/she is guilty for it, without even having enough evidence that points out they did it. This shows that our justice system is not as strong as we think it is. The death penalty is irreversible. Once a

     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. Based on this fact, there are three arguments against the ruling. The first is the utilitarian rationale that letting guilty people loose on the grounds that the evidence against them was illegally places more criminals on in society than would otherwise be without the exclusionary rule, thus creating a danger to society. The second objection based upon this fact is the nonconsequentialist argument that the exclusionary rule is unfair to those who are legally convicted of crime, considering the fact that others who possibly commit worse crimes are not incarcerated because they were fortunate enough to be arrested by a half-wit. The third objection based upon this fact is that it hampers the abilities of the police force to fulfil their obligation to society by restricting their

You’re right! The exclusionary rule is very important especially in ensuring that the police officers abide by the fourth amendment and conduct legal searches and seizures. The problem is sometimes police officers make bad judgments and try to patch it up by performing illegal actions. In addition, unlawful searches and seizures may lead to death. The Chief Justice makes a good point, because gathering evidence to prove the crime should be the prime goal. I also believe that police misconduct is over exaggerated now days, but I can admit that it still occurs today.

Constitution does not allow excessive sanctions. It also calls for punishment that is suitable for the offense. If all felons are excluded from voting would go against this amendment. To employ this practice would cause a violation of our Eight Amendment right. All citizens should be allowed to vote to refrain from violating this right.

I do not believe that capital punishment is cruel and unusual in modern time. This is rare that someone will get the capital punishment however. Yet, it the idea holds that someone who commits crime far beyond what the law has consequences for. In which, there is no crime under such act, capital punishment comes into play. In addition, at times capital punishment is for those who are an extreme danger within society, typically those with serious threatening mental disorders and or serial killers. In the event, that one is found guilty over false evidence. I do favor in the Supreme Court to concern itself with questions of fact using DNA evidence. If the Supreme Court invests itself to DNA evidence procedures that will accurately tell if someone

amendments states our rights one of them defends people when they are on trial and what their retribution will be. Newsmax.com states, “The eighth amendment of the U.S. constitution prohibits excessive sanctions and calls for punishment that fits an offense, according to proponents of restoring voting rights to ex-felons. Permanently excluding all felons from voting go against this amendment,” (newsmax.com). The eighth amendment is clearly protecting these previous imprisoned persons. They have the right that protects themselves, they are still citizens of America. The eighth amendment protects makes sure they're in no inhumane punishment that comes about on the person. John Ghaelian said in the article, Restoring the right to Vote; “The right to vote is often, and accurately, described as the most important among the many rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. One commentator has gone so far as to describe the right to vote as “part of our ethos for what it means to be an American,” (John). This is to say as a human being who is a citizen of the United States there is the right that you have to vote, and you have the ability to protect those rights. By taking away the capability of those people goes against the constitution and is inhumane. Going against this could consider that the person who was sent to prison is no longer an American, which is not true. They are still citizens of the United

The practice of prohibiting felons, especially former felons, from voting is anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, and antipathetic. A felon should be permitted to vote, assuming the felon is not a psychopath. Psychopaths are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and if they were allowed to vote, they may influence society in negative ways by voting for the politicians less tough on crime, for example. However, if a democracy is so frail that it cannot withstand the votes of those who are incarcerated, then something is very wrong with the democracy and needs rectifying.

There were many other examples of the declining of the federal exclusionary rule before the Mapp v. Ohio case. For example, Wolf v. Colorado, when the Fourth Amendment came in contact with the Fourteeneeth Amendment because the Supreme Court decided not to pass the federal exclusionary rule. Justice Frankfurter relied on the ruling of the People v. Defore case by Judge Cardozo(Black).

Death penalty should be scrapped because it can lead to the execution of innocent people. The justice system is bound to make mistakes and so, the accused people should be given a chance to appeal, and prove their innocence other than being murdered because of mistakes made by judges. There are many cases whereby individuals are imprisoned and