Provide an argument to support the position that the Exclusionary Rule
goes too far by limiting the ability of law enforcement officers to pursue investigations and allowing criminals to go free
. Provide a hypothetical example to illustrate your position.
Provide an argument to support the opposite
position -- that the Exclusionary Rule does not afford enough protections to individuals suspected of criminal activity due to the many exceptions to that Rule.
Provide a hypothetical example to illustrate
your position.
Conclude your initial post with a statement of which of the above positions you most strongly agree with. Explain why you chose this position.
The exclusionary rule says evidence gathered illegally cannot be introduced into evidence in a court. Very few authorities always apply the exclusionary rule.
For example, in Texas, the exclusionary rule never applies in civil court but always applies in criminal court. In United States Federal courts, the exclusionary rule only applies when the illegal conduct was attributable to the police, the police did not have a reasonable belief that their conduct was legal, and the benefits of excluding the evidence outweigh the harms of excluding it.
The arguments for the exclusionary rule are:
It is necessary to prevent police from violating people’s rights.
Admitting illegally obtained evidence affects the course of justice.
Illegally obtained evidence is unreliable.
The arguments against the exclusionary rule are:
There is a right not to be subject to unlawful or unreasonable searches or seizures. Admitting illegally obtained evidence is neither a search nor a seizure. Suppressing illegally obtained evidence cannot prevent an unlawful search or seizure since it already happened.
Suppressing evidence perverts the course of justice by hiding relevant information from the jury. This can mean letting a criminal go free because a
police officer screwed up, depriving victims' families of justice and sometimes compensation.
