Is Wilkes V. Wood?

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

If the trial judge did not exclude the evidence from the trial, then the Supreme Court must overturn the conviction. In some cases, the accused will be retried without the use of the illegally obtained evidence. In other cases, there will not be a retrial because the illegally obtained evidence was the basis of the prosecution's case. The story of the birth and evolution of the exclusionary rule is complex and demonstrates the unique problems the Supreme Court has had to face when interpreting the Fourth Amendment."

The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications.

We try to press against the boundaries of what we are allowed, walk a step past the edge. Our records will be scrutinized by Congress one day and decisions on whether to enlarge our jurisdiction will be made. Some day. We want the right to prosecute criminals of all races on all lands within our original boundaries. Which is why I try to run a tight courtroom, Joe. What I am doing now is for the future, though it may seem small, or trivial, or boring, to you” (Erdrich 229-230).

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

One of the most famous cases that influenced the Fourth Amendment was that of Entick v. Carrington. This was only one of many civil cases against officials who raided people’s homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' political pamphlets that attack both the government and the King. Mr. Entick, who was an associate of John Wilkes, sued because agents had entered his house forcefully and broken into desks and boxes that were locked. They then seized pamphlets, charts, and other printed materials. The courts decided the warrant gave the officials the right to search and seizure and the ability to issue a warrant for all a person's papers rather than only those accused of being criminal ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' The warrant was said to be invalid because it had no probable cause and no record was made of what had been seized. The Supreme Court has said this case is a guide to understanding what the Framers meant when writing the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court began to erect modern Fourth Amendment law in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, recognizing police discretion but with the exclusionary rule at its center. The provision that became the Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1791 and states as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendment does not entitle absolute protection, but rather a reasonable protection. Said protection not only applies to material objects, but also individuals themselves (Schmalleger 2009).

The English case became a guide that helped the framers of the United States of America’s Constitution in establishing this amendment. At the time of writing, the only valid solution to an illegal search and seizure was a law-suit to gain money to pay for damages caused (Meese 3). Within the colonies, the only purpose to conduct searches and seizures was for the sole reason that colonists were smuggling in goods following the taxation from the English crown. In cases regarding colonial smugglers, James Otis was able to defend on the basis of the “writs of assistance” (Meese 3). The founding fathers became aware of the issues of unreasonable searches and seizures, thus establishing the Fourth Amendment. To govern this amendments activity, a body of law was established by our nation’s courts on the levels of state and federal (Meese 3).

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

Immemorial, governments and individual citizens have had to walk a thin tightrope between the two ideals. This controversy was the catalyst that sparked the first ten amendments of the Constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights and, how in addition to these rights secured by America's forefathers, a number of institutions have arisen to ensure the protection of individual rights in an increasingly complex world. In order to add balance to this equation, the criminal

Since 1923, when Judge Learned Hand said that the American judicial system “has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,” the issue of wrongful conviction has been acknowledged to man (Halstead, 1992; Huff, Rattner, Sagarin, & MacNamara, 1986). After the judge made his innocuous statements, serious study of this phenomenon began. Contrary to the statement the judge made, time and technology have revealed that an unquantifiable number of wrongfully convicted persons have served prison terms and even been executed for crimes they did not commit and some that did not even occur. Research into wrongful conviction was virtually nonexistent until Professor Edward Brochard of Yale University published his book Convicting the Innocent in 1932. This book documented 65 such cases, addressed the legal causes of miscarriage, and offered suggestions to reform. Subsequently, numerous other researchers began conducting case studies and publishing findings that affirmed that wrongful conviction represents a systematic problem within the American judicial process (Huff, 2002).

The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will