Amongst the legitimate goals of the government is to punish those who go against the rights of others by committing forceful or violent acts, such as robbery, theft, trespass, burglary, or rape. Nonetheless, the matter does not often end there, as there are proper inquiries that must be made in time to ensure that people are convicted only of crimes they have induced themselves. In the United States, the right of the accused entails the right to due process, a fair trial, and privacy. The following continuation is a discussion on the exclusionary rule, double jeopardy, and the Miranda rights concepts.
a. Exclusionary Rule
The Exclusionary Rule grounded in the 4th Amendment, precludes pieces of evidence that are collected or evaluated in violation of the defendant’s lawful rights from being adduced in the U.S. courts (Sekhon 431). The rule was, nonetheless, disallowed in Boyd v. the …show more content…
Despite genuine reasons behind the enactment of the rule, it has faced significant hurdles as shown in the United States v. Perez (1824), in which the judges refused to admit the double jeopardy procedural defense (Head 1). Concerning the case, one would concur with the views expressed by the bench in dismissing the double jeopardy rule on the case.
The reason behind this is driven by several reasons. Firstly, a strict adherence to the law would give a leeway for injustices, as many times mistakes are made, corrupt judges let criminals escape from this injustice. Without proper retrials, potentially dangerous criminals would be set upon the society to possibly cause more offenses and disorder. By allowing such an act to go unpunished in the face of glaring evidence, it would lower the respect and trust that people have for the judicial
a. Exclusionary Rule
The Exclusionary Rule grounded in the 4th Amendment, precludes pieces of evidence that are collected or evaluated in violation of the defendant’s lawful rights from being adduced in the U.S. courts (Sekhon 431). The rule was, nonetheless, disallowed in Boyd v. the …show more content…
Despite genuine reasons behind the enactment of the rule, it has faced significant hurdles as shown in the United States v. Perez (1824), in which the judges refused to admit the double jeopardy procedural defense (Head 1). Concerning the case, one would concur with the views expressed by the bench in dismissing the double jeopardy rule on the case.
The reason behind this is driven by several reasons. Firstly, a strict adherence to the law would give a leeway for injustices, as many times mistakes are made, corrupt judges let criminals escape from this injustice. Without proper retrials, potentially dangerous criminals would be set upon the society to possibly cause more offenses and disorder. By allowing such an act to go unpunished in the face of glaring evidence, it would lower the respect and trust that people have for the judicial