Pros and Cons of the Exclusionary Rule

In this essay a discussion will be explored about the benefits and problems associated with police use of discretion. Which current policing strategies have the most potential for controlling officer discretion and providing accountability, and which have the least, and why is that the case? And finally, how might these issues impact the various concerns facing law enforcement today?

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 Exclusionary rule, as defined in our Criminal Justice Book: 7e, is the principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial. If any evidence, that falls within the field of the exclusionary rule, is found that would otherwise not have been found by law enforcements, the rule applies to linked evidence found and all the evidence after. This after evidence is often referred as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The exclusionary rule is also looked at in a way to block law enforcement officers from handling searches and/or seizures, a violation of the fourth amendment, possibly aiding to defendants whose rights have been violated.

There has been an argument among legal experts that the provisions of the exclusionary rule are merely to deter the misconduct of the law enforcement personnel. In light of this, most courts do not adhere to the provisions of the exclusionary rule as it is viewed as an extension of the Fourth Amendment. Ideally, Police officers deem the law as an obstacle on their endeavors to

The Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that “any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s constitutional rights be excluded

”Unjust law is no law at all.” In face of unjust laws, merely tolerance and obeying could be detrimental not only to personal rights but also to the well-being of the society. Therefore, it is indeed every people’s responsibility to disobey or even resist them. As we know during the sixties of America a number of citizens decided not to obey the law which itself is unjust and wrong any longer. Without their resistance, there wouldn’t have been the civil rights movement, anti-war

Although the exclusionary rule most often is applied to violations of the Fourth Amendment, it has been applied to other constitutional violations as well.13

The proposition that the exclusionary rule should be abolished is preposterous. There are few rules that are as useful in protecting the rights of the general public. 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. Opponents of the exclusionary rule perceive its gains to be dubious; its costs overwhelming. This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. 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

The reason we have rules in life are simple, to keep order when there is chaos and to guide our behavior in a way that is acceptable by society’s standards. The reason we have laws and procedures to carry out those laws are simple as well, to keep the government from infringing on its citizen’s constitutional rights. If the government was to rid itself of the exclusionary rule, then it has the potential to be infringing on its citizens rights. The government could essentially walk into anyone who is suspected of a crime’s house and seize whatever they feel is evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important constitutional right within U.S. legal system, but just as it is with most of the legal systems the exclusionary rule is not without

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.

The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides people under the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also delineates the methods members of the criminal justice system may obtain information via judicially sanctioned search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionary rule exempts some evidence even when the seizure or location of the evidence may violate the Fourth Amendment. The rule also provides some benefits and

The balance of civil liberties and law enforcement is a heated subject that has been in existence arguably since the inception of the United States (U.S.) Constitution. The primary protections granted to U.S. citizens from law enforcement can be found in Amendments II (2) and IV (4) of the Constitution. Amendment II outlines the rights of citizens to bear arms with the language allowing room for interpretation, for example a citizen’s potential right to defend themselves from other citizens and/or the government. Amendment IV places restrictions on police and their ability to conduct investigations, stating the need for a court-issued warrant to perform search and seizure of persons and/or property. Other Amendments place restrictions on the court and corrections branches of the

Law enforcement leaders must be continually vigilant to ensure that the actions of their officers do not violate civil rights and do not compromise public support. The individual officer is granted a tremendous amount of authority and discretion to enforce the law. Their ultimate duty is to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by others in the community. They must never consider themselves above the law while executing their responsibility to enforce the law. This commitment is what distinguishes police in constitutionally based, democratic societies like ours from police in nondemocratic countries, where they are perceived as oppressive agents of a government whose main purpose is to restrict, rather than protect, the rights of civilians (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2006).

An integral component to the infrastructure of government is law enforcement. In recent years, police abuse has come to the attention of the general public. While citizens worry about protecting themselves from criminals, it has now been shown that they must also keep a watchful eye on those who have been given the responsibility to protect and serve. This paper will discuss the types of police abuse prevalent today, including the use of firearms and recovery of private information. I will also discuss what and how citizens’ rights are violated by the police. We will also explore the measures necessary to protect ourselves from police taking advantage of their positions as law enforcement officers with greater permissive rights than

Miranda also protects suspects from fanatical law enforcement officials. Although most law-enforcement officials are nice men and women, some conduct ill-usage of their power. They may try to pressure suspects