Essay On Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. The U.S. Supreme Court developed the rule to discourage police from violating the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A lot of police feel as when they have their badge on there able to do anything and everything which isn't fair to the everyday citizen. Reasons of why I support this statement is the exclusionary rule is such an amazing tool to use . The Forth Amendment is really an asset against unnecessary search and seizure. Instead of police and officers putting aside your constitutional rights if they're assuming you're guilty, they will instead have to work within the law to bring about
…show more content…
a case against you. They will not be allowed to use illegal means, or even go against your rights without putting their entire investigation at risk. All of this can result in more careful police work, a stronger overall case, and an adherence to the basic rights every citizen of the United States is born with. My second reason for supporting is it stops innocent people having charges brought upon them. Not every person charged with a crime is guilty of committing that crime. It is a sad fact that every year, innocent people are put in jail. Our judicial system is not perfect, and having things like the exclusionary rule will make it harder to connect dots that aren't there. With the exclusionary rule, prosecutors will have to work much harder to make a case. These are important factors which I think would support that statement.
Reasons I oppose this statement it's not a part of the U.S Constitution The exclusionary rule is a great way to boost the 4th amendment to the United States constitution.
By itself, however, it is not mentioned in the constitution. As a result, it is subject to arguments in court that erode its effectiveness. For example, there is no exclusionary rule when it comes to civil cases. In addition, people in deportation hearings do not have its protection either. There are also special circumstance situations where the exclusionary rule can be discarded. Knowing your rights, as a result will be very challenging as laws will change based on the state where you reside. Ultimately, having a firm understanding of your rights at a moment when you need to know may be the most challenging part of the exclusionary rule. Another reason to be against it is A lot of people dislike the exclusionary rule because it occasionally allows guilty people to go free. This is demonstrated the strongest in situations where the person is clearly guilty, but a mistake by detectives gets the person off on a technicality. While the exclusionary rule may help guilty people go free, it can also slow down the pace of an investigation, allowing for more crimes to be committed before a person can be brought to
trail. My reasons for supporting are for the facts I mentioned previously the police actually have to try hard to bring a case against that person. Also, innocent people having charges against them. Dealing with the law isn't the easiest thing so my best advice would be to stay on your best behavior.
a case against you. They will not be allowed to use illegal means, or even go against your rights without putting their entire investigation at risk. All of this can result in more careful police work, a stronger overall case, and an adherence to the basic rights every citizen of the United States is born with. My second reason for supporting is it stops innocent people having charges brought upon them. Not every person charged with a crime is guilty of committing that crime. It is a sad fact that every year, innocent people are put in jail. Our judicial system is not perfect, and having things like the exclusionary rule will make it harder to connect dots that aren't there. With the exclusionary rule, prosecutors will have to work much harder to make a case. These are important factors which I think would support that statement.
Reasons I oppose this statement it's not a part of the U.S Constitution The exclusionary rule is a great way to boost the 4th amendment to the United States constitution.
By itself, however, it is not mentioned in the constitution. As a result, it is subject to arguments in court that erode its effectiveness. For example, there is no exclusionary rule when it comes to civil cases. In addition, people in deportation hearings do not have its protection either. There are also special circumstance situations where the exclusionary rule can be discarded. Knowing your rights, as a result will be very challenging as laws will change based on the state where you reside. Ultimately, having a firm understanding of your rights at a moment when you need to know may be the most challenging part of the exclusionary rule. Another reason to be against it is A lot of people dislike the exclusionary rule because it occasionally allows guilty people to go free. This is demonstrated the strongest in situations where the person is clearly guilty, but a mistake by detectives gets the person off on a technicality. While the exclusionary rule may help guilty people go free, it can also slow down the pace of an investigation, allowing for more crimes to be committed before a person can be brought to
trail. My reasons for supporting are for the facts I mentioned previously the police actually have to try hard to bring a case against that person. Also, innocent people having charges against them. Dealing with the law isn't the easiest thing so my best advice would be to stay on your best behavior.