Exclusionary Rule Disadvantages

Good Essays
There are many definitions for the exclusionary rule, but to make it simple, I would say this rule was derived from the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments of the United States. Many cases before this rule did not grant the accused the many perks the exclusionary rule offers the people of the united states now. As such many accused ended up being punished under very brutal and strict regulations. And also went through vigorous processes during the investigation process. Wikipedia defines the exclusionary rule as the legal principle in the United States derived from its constitutional law, which states that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is sometimes not used or accepted for use in court …show more content…
One of the advantages of the Exclusionary rule was intended to dissuade police from wrongdoing. The exclusionary rule empowers courts to prohibit implicating proof to be presented at trial until it has been confirmed through the proper routes that the law enforcement agencies obtained it the right way. The exclusionary rule on the other hand becomes a big disadvantage to the police. As a police or a detective, you have to do more and that can reduce your speed in terms of getting all your facts and evidence together for trial. Defendants can use pre-trial motion to eliminate evidence or not being used against them if they think it does not apply to their particular case. Defendants can use pre-trial motion to suppress evidence if they do not believe it applies in the particular case being held in court against them. The individual has the chance to appeal the case if that evidence that he/she requested to be thrown out at pre-trial is used to convict them (Lombardo, 2015). In the event that the accused is granted an appeal, nonetheless, the supreme court has decided that double jeopardy does not bar retrial of the accused because the courts mistake was not geared towards guilt or innocence. Lackhart versus Nelson is one good landmark decision. The prosecution will have a very tough time convicting the accused in the appeal, for the fact that the exclusionary …show more content…
There are many people who are looking to get rid of the rule within the courtrooms because of the constant question of whether it is constitutional or not. It can be expensive for prosecutors and lawyers to gather a considerable amount of proof in the event that some of it is taken away as a result of the exclusionary rule This can delay the process of trials, where some of them take a year or longer to determine who is guilty. The defendant can use the exclusionary rule to their benefit as a way of helping their case. Even if the evidence is against them and would otherwise prove that they are guilty, if it has been obtained in an illegal way, it is dismissed (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012). “A companion to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine” (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012, p. 219). To accommodate the changes in our daily lives, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Under these exceptions, the supreme court will admit some evidence that were still obtained under illegal means. According to Adler, Mueller, & Laufer (2012), “most notable is the good faith exception- where police officers acted in good faith on what they believe to be

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    If defendants were forced to testify they wouldn’t only have access to answering the questions from the defense attorney, possibly explaining the evidence against them, but they’d also be vulnerable to the cross-examination of the prosecution. The prosecution is supposedly supposed to uphold justice, meaning if they don’t have a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, then they should drop the charges. However, we can imagine that that rarely happens, even if the defendant is innocent. Therefore, if an innocent defendant is being cross examined, the prosecution should be convinced of their guilt, otherwise, they should have dropped the charges. It’s also important to note that an overwhelming majority, almost two-thirds, of those convicted of crimes haven’t graduated high school.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He suggests, “motions for retrial based on false testimony presented by prosecution witnesses should be governed by a standard drawn from newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct” (p. 52). He also explains how a proper test for courtroom misconduct is more likely achievable if there is a great chance that the jury is aware of the false testimony and would avoid convicting the defendant. By acknowledging the challenges that the system faces in dealing with courtroom misconduct, the author indicates that there is a need to hold professional members of the court with a greater amount of accountability. Although there is the potential consequence for retrial, some attorneys…

    • 652 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Judge Doe is excluding evidence during trial yet the prosecution asked the judge for an Evidentiary Hearing so they can argue their case on why the evidence should be allowed. The defense will also have their chance to argue their case on why the evidence should not be allowed to be presented at trial. The judge agreed to an Evidentiary Hearing but our argument will quickly be under the exclusionary rule because the police knowingly violated the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights. The exclusionary rule "is a judicial rule that makes evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, state or federal laws, or court rules inadmissible" (Anderson & Gardner, p. 214). Therefore, by law, the evidence excludes any evidence…

    • 1291 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Furthermore, judges would be less worried about the illegality of evidence, allowing guilty individuals to walk free. Instead, judges would feel free to point out police transgressions, making them less likely to make further mistakes and possibly expanding the fourth amendment. This article is pertinent to my research because it gives the laws that other countries have regarding the exclusionary rule and the effectiveness…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Again conceding that the majority of courts reject a jurisdictional view of the statute of limitations, Petitioner nonetheless argued that primary policy consideration underlying the statute, which is to limit the government’s power to prosecute citizens for crimes that are based on untimely indictments, counseled in favor of adopting the jurisdictional approach. Additionally, the federal statute prohibited Article III courts from imposing punishment “when the prerequisite of timely indictment is not satisfied.” Finally, a jurisdictional approach was consistent with the principle that criminal statutes should be “liberally interpreted in favor of…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Firstly, double jeopardy ensures Fuller from being endlessly on trial for an offense, even if he is cleared on similar counts, allowing the legal system not to be abused. He should not be tried for the same offence repeatedly, this leads to the possibility of abusing the legal system. Fuller used the baseball mat as means of self-defense and since he as find innocent on the similar count two, he should not be charged again. If one is found innocent for the majority of counts and no sufficient to prove his first count on using deadly weapon that cause body’s damage on the other side, he should have the freedom to go on with their lives. His life should not be interfered and worried about…

    • 676 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Any actions contrary to this would jeopardize the integrity of the judicial system. In court rulings, impartiality is observed by providing each side an opportunity to present their arguments without placing unlawful limits to them (Shatreet, 2015). In relation, judges are allowed to declare defense or prosecution lawyers in contempt of the court based on unruly behavior. Otherwise, judges have no authority to prevent defense lawyers from presenting valid arguments and evidence to the court. A judge who bans a defense lawyer from speaking in court is acting unlawfully and preventing the establishment of impartiality in the court proceedings.…

    • 1159 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Amendment IV states that officials need a warrant with evidence to search and seize. It further encourages to government officials to take the extra precautionary step by stating that if evidence is found without a warrant, it is void. Amendment V protects the accused 's right to a "due process of law," meaning their natural rights are protected even if incriminated. Again, the Bill of Rights punishes officials for not adhering to the rules, e.g. if the criminal was not told his Miranda Rights upon arrest, he is let free.…

    • 1010 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Probably the biggest one of those advantages in my opinion is that the exclusionary rule shifts the burden of proof away from the individual. The government and police department are forced to present facts and evidence that would reasonably lead a jury to think that the individual in question committed that crime. (Bradley, 2012) Another big advantage of the exclusionary rule is that the rule helps to defend the constitutional rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment rights, of the individual. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against that of an unnecessary search and seizure by making police officers find legal ways to obtain evidence against individuals. (Bradley, 2012) In cases prior to the exclusionary rule being enacted, in many instances police officers would obtain evidence illegally, which in turn would result with the individual being convicted.…

    • 1031 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The police are obliged to inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for (or, if necessary, provide for) a defendant 's attorney who can accompany him during interrogations as well as his or her right to remain silent. Any type of confession obtained without warnings against self-incrimination and/or without legal counsel present became inadmissible in court of law. With the instatement of the Miranda Rights a confession police obtained from a suspect in custody would not be admissible in court unless that suspect had been read his or her rights. Due to this part of the clause many criminals have been set free due to technicalities of the law. It is a careful balance “designed to fully protect both the defendants ' and society 's…

    • 1901 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays