The exclusionary rule provides extra protections for defendants; however, certain circumstances exist allowing the introduction of gathered evidence that violates the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. These exceptions include good faith errors, independent sources, inevitable discovery, and the purged taint exception. The good faith exception allows the introduction of evidence collected by law enforcement that on review violates the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. A defective search warrant may taint the collected evidence; however, law enforcement officers acting under good faith a search warrant is valid may present the tainted evidence at trial because the initial error lies with the judge approving the probable cause for the warrant (Del Carmen, 2010). The independent source exception allows the introduction of evidence obtained via the direct result of an illegal search or seizure if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the seizure of the evidence dissipates the taint of illegality. If the police possess an independent source used to obtain entry on a search and discover contraband based on the source in an illegal manner, then the seizure of the evidence is admissible regardless of the illegal entry or search (Del Carmen, 2010). The inevitable discovery doctrine allows the introduction of evidence of a defendant’s guilt that is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. The doctrine states
Accountability refers to the duty that the elected government has to its people while it is in office . With regards to a majoritarian system, power and accountability lie in the hands of the ruling party therefore the government is fully liable to it’s citizens. However, in proportional representation, the government is comprised of many political parties who jointly make decisions. ‘Ambiguity and compromise are introduced on a secondary level whenever coalitions are formed’ . Essentially a particular party cannot be held liable in a coalition government
One who takes responsibility for those who works under his or her authority needs to have accountability at all times.
Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides
The acquisition of evidence for a trial is an important step both parties take. However, some methods used to obtain such evidence can be debatable. In order to protect both sides from exploitation, a set of rules are set in place. This rule is called the Exclusionary Rule. To begin with,
The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment in the United States constitution says that “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
Accountability standards have massively improved over the years.Accountability is being held responsible to something. Standards are a certain level of success to reach in an area. Therefore, accountability standards are a level of quality that an individual is held responsible for. We have changed how we view these standards as
Final Paper This paper examines the exclusionary rule. Explains the reasons for the origin of the exclusionary rule. The paper contends that use of the exclusionary rule has enabled guilty criminals to go free and that its original intention has been so distorted that it no longer fulfills its intended function and is instead a tool for protecting the rights of criminals Not only how it came about but, the true meaning as well as the exceptions. There are also a number of cases mentioned throughout the paper that have played some role in the exclusionary.
Accountability is important, because without it, there's no where to place the blame when mistakes occur. In fact, accountability covers more than just blameworthiness; responsibility, answerability, and liability also come into question when discussing the importance of accountability. The very application of the word, describes a system, in which actions, decisions, and policies are all accounted for (or: kept track of, recorded, and assessed and evaluated). Accountability can even extend into the administration of new policies, that are rendered due to obsolete rules and regulations or just out-right compliancy issues; the governance of decisions that define expectations or verify one's performance-- as well as managing and guiding
Research strategy This study investigates accountability based on Giddens 's structuration theory (1984) and assumes that reality is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1969), bounded by time and space, and that individuals are knowledgeable. These assumptions lead to the use of an interpretivist approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lincoln & Guba,
One alternative resolution is accountability of the stakeholders - those who have an interest in or are affected by the entity's operation or actions - that the entity is telling the truth about what it's doing, and that its actions, practices, and policies are legal, ethical, and reasonably effective. There are several reasons the stakeholders may request accountability. The first one is to ensure that the actions and policies of an entity or individual are actually known, so that they can be judged; to urge the passage of laws, policies, or regulations adequate to keep the entity or individual behaving legally, ethically, and competently; to keep government, businesses, and institutions from acting unethically.
I agree that accountability comes at the expense of government efficiency. The ability of a government to function efficiently is directly related to its capability to quickly and effectively address the problems of its constituents. As a result, greater accountability at times can delay or even compromise the ability of
Actus Reus in Criminal Law This principle has been restricted by many exceptions: Failure leads to criminality about it, if the statute law is merely said that a success "caused" to be. But also in the field of law is not fixed common-law -crime several exceptions are discussed:
One of the key distinctions between evaluation and research is evaluation places a value judgment on something (Mathison, 2008; Weiss, 1972). Evaluating something does not necessarily lead to accountability, but the process of accountability does involve making a value judgment and hence requires evaluation (Mathison, 2009). Ebrahim (2003) identifies five means of accountability; evaluation, reports and disclosure statements, participation, self-regulation, and social audits. As such there is no question evaluation can play a role in accountability. The question is more what type of accountability can and does evaluation contribute to?
2. Accountability: The existence of legitimate systems of control-particularly to provide shareholders and creditors with an effective structure to enable them to express and enforce their interests and concerns over the actions of a