Exclusionary_Rule

The purpose of the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was first introduced into the criminal justice system in 1914, during the case with Weeks versus the United States in the Supreme Court. The exclusionary rule is a part of the Fourth Amendment; it states as follow “that any evidence sized illegally by government officers cannot be introduced by the prosecution in a criminal trial to prove the defendant’s guilt.” For this “remedy” is not a part of the Fourth Amendment. In the beginning it was only allowed for the federal law enforcements because the Bill of Rights had not yet been incorporated in that era. Cost of the exclusionary rule The cost of the exclusionary rule is very much costly, it not only cost the courts time and the money, but it costs the people within the society, for the exclusionary rule keeps the evidence from the courts, which interns makes it more difficult and even more impossible for a conviction of the defendant. With the loss of the evidence could lead to a retrial or even the defendant walking away free. There are many people whom believe that the exclusionary rule should be abolished, because it should not be a means of controlling law enforcement, and they believe that “the ends justify the means”. Budiansky states in his article that “the exclusionary rule, along with its use of warrants, is “a process that lets criminals off on ‘technicalities’”. Ultimately, the exclusionary rule can be seen as an obstacle for the police, to make citizens feel safer and more in control of their privacy and protection. Both sides of the exclusionary rule however, can agree that police officers should not be excused from breaking the law, for “just” purposes. (Rothwax, 42) There are also many people who believe in the exclusionary rule, Supporters of the exclusionary rule say that it controls police conduct, it limits their authority and their power. Citizens have every right to feel protected in the privacy of their homes and without this rule; their privacy could be interrupted at any time. Law enforcement could easily barge into a private home and take anything that is illegal, regardless of what they were originally searching for. The exclusionary rule also puts the use of warrants into action. The magistrate is the only one that can issue warrants, and they must meet three criteria; the location of the search, the objective of the search and probable cause. Police officers must follow a specific guideline on searching either an individual or a private home. The exclusionary rule protects the individual citizen and simultaneously limits the effectiveness of law enforcers. “A balance must be maintained between being fair and being effective” Conclusion: The retention of the exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule has an important and necessary role in the law because police officials already have authority in many other aspects. If illegally seized evidence is permitted in court, the police will have an indirect power in steering a criminal trial towards their favor. Some may argue that criminals will be set free because of the inadmissibility of the evidence; however the blame should not be placed on the exclusionary rule, but to the officers who lacked the knowledge to seize evidence in the first place. Without the exclusionary rule, people will feel vulnerable and helpless with a general lack of the protection of their individual rights. The process of getting a warrant is relatively simple; the law should not be changed simply because of inadequate police officers. The exclusionary rule is ultimately necessary to keep America in its balanced law and order.