Pros And Cons Of The Exclusionary Rule

In the words of Malcolm Wilkey, “few people have considered the enormous social cost of the exclusionary rule, and fewer still have thought about possible alternatives to the rule.(Wilkey, 2016)” This article will address these issues. This article also brings up the opinion of several other scholars majorly though of one man by the name of Kamisar's who wrote Is the exclusionary rule an 'illogical' or 'unnatural' interpretation of the Fourth Amendment? This article will likewise touch base in other countries and compare it back to the United States. Through this, it was possible to determine that indeed other countries exemption of the exclusionary rule seems to work better than our use of the exclusionary rule.
What the author intends to answer is what the exclusionary rule is and alternatives to the rule that potentially increase societal self-worth and positive reinforcement. This article explains to for the exclusionary rule, “it is a judge made rule of evidence, originated in 1914 by the Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States, which bars "the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.(Wilkey, 216)” What surprises the reader is finding out that the exclusionary rule is not a rule required by the constitution. It is through
this that there is a visible struggle on the actual benefit of the exclusionary rule. If the question on how useful the exclusionary rule can be answered then it leaves an opening to discuss the importance of alternatives. Wilkey studies possible alternatives like the common law used in older days. Regarded from another article THE WASHINGTON STAR, editorial, p. 16, July 7, 197.5., “it was not deemed the duty of the court to look into the provenance of evidence only to weigh its relevance and accuracy. (Wilkey,217)”Another example of an alternative is the Israeli law where they completely ignore the exclusionary rule and try a person directly on the crime that occurred and evidence obtained to prove this individual wrong. In term of deterrence for police officers who contaminate evidence, Wilkey’s idea is to use the method Canada/ England have which is where action is taken against the policeman and the government in a separate case not regarded to the case in which the evidence was obtained for. If these alternatives are not reason enough to see how ineffectual the exclusionary rule is then it determined that it will continue to reflow into the same path. Wilkey believes this allows criminals to get away and for society to suffer. The author concludes with this statement, “If the Supreme Court or the Congress has a choice of methods under the Constitution, then it simply will not do to rest the choice of the exclusionary rule solely on the high principle of "judicial integrity" and to ignore the pragmatic result, the failure to achieve the objective of enforcement and the other pernicious side effects discussed above, which themselves strongly discredit judicial integrity.(Wilkey,232)” Wilkey disagrees with the author he was disputing, Kamisar, mainly because Kamisar did not have strong enough evidence to suggest that the exclusionary rule held importance.
He concludes that the exclusionary rule should be abolished to make room for
alternatives. I have to disagree in some ways to the author. Yes, in terms of what the exclusionary rule does to a court case can be seen as a downside. Although, not all of them are bad. It is easy to get behind the cons like allowing someone who's guilty get away free or how in some ways it's unconstitutional because it is not explicitly stated, etc. Though just like how there is an exclusionary rule to help those whose 4th amendment right is infringed on, the officers have a ticket into getting past this rule. It also prevents the falsification of evidence that may be placed by a corrupt official. This is the good faith rule. The good faith rule is, “If officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible.(Cornell, 2009)” It is because of this rule that it makes the exclusionary rule justifiable. If there wasn’t such a rule instated then yes, the exclusionary rule could be deemed as ridiculous.