Why We Need The Exclusionary Rule Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Why We Need The Exclusionary Rule - Term Paper Example It is widely agreed that evidence needs to be credible for it to be accepted by the courts. Undoubtedly, the credibility of the evidence is greatly influenced by the modes of its collection. In this regard, it cannot be disputed that police procedures play a significant role in determining the credibility of the given evidence. One of the procedural factors that have raised controversies in the recent past pertains to the role of the exclusionary rule in collection of evidence. This paper provides an in depth analysis of whether we need the exclusionary rule or not. In order to enhance justice by ensuring that evidence employed in courts from the police is credible, we do need the exclusionary rule. Thesis Statement In order to enhance justice by ensuring that evidence employed in courts from the police is credible, we do need the exclusionary rule. Background Information The exclusionary rule is anchored on the provisions of the Fifth Amendment. Basically, it postulates that objects used by the courts as evidence are not credible if they are obtained without a legitimate search warrant or illegally. The constitutional roots of this rule date back to the Gouled vs United States case of 1921. In this case, the Supreme Court maintained that although the government had a legal right to seize contraband; it did not have a right to seize property for the sole purpose of using the same as evidence (Josephson, 2009). Of course, there are certain instances where the evidence obtained from warrantless police searches is acceptable or admissible in the courts of law. Specific instances in this regard include searches conducted in airports, in cases where something is considered as a plain view, when police officers are effecting a lawful arrest or when the officers lack sufficient time to obtain a warrant of arrest. In the later, delays in effecting the arrest can have adverse impacts on the evidence. Issues relating to Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule plays an im portant role of preventing the police from violating the fundamental rights as well liberties of the members of the public. Warrants are official documents that are issued by judges whenever they deem it necessary to search the premises in a bid to recover or obtain important evidence. Certainly, they are issued when the respective judges believe that evidence can be found within the indicated premises. Besides enabling the police to recover critical evidence, the rule ensures that the holistic well-being of the Americans is safeguarded as it was proved in the case of Langdon v. People, 133 Illinois 382 [1890]. In this case, the court held that it was not in order for â€Å"seizure pursuant to search warrant of official state documents was unlawful within appellant’s possession†. Nonetheless, it should be appreciated that the rule is limiting in various scenarios. This is compounded by the increasing complexity of the crimes. Current trends indicate that the frequency and complexity of crimes has increased significantly therefore, requiring the police to have a search warrant in all scenarios can limit effective recovery of critical evidence. Moreover, failing to use reasonable and necessary force in certain instance can inhibit evidence recovery efforts by the police. In light of the preceding limitations, the exclusionary rule is not necessary. According to Lynch (2000), the legality of the exclusionary rule is uncertain. This is because it is neither underscored in the national constitution nor evaluated at length in the Framers’ writings. At this point, it should be appreciated that the above-mentioned documents are the founding documents of the American legal sphere. Generally,

Policy Brief Addressing The Issue Of Offender Recidivism Essay

Policy Brief Addressing The Issue Of Offender Recidivism - Essay Example It has been noted that there is a widespread inequality in the treatment of people in various institutions including the courts. There are allegations and reports that the minorities are being treated more strictly by court officials than the whites. They tend to receive harsher treatment for their crimes, are believed to be more predisposed to crimes and are likely to re-offend, especially the youths. Bridges and Steen (1998) explain that the perceptions of court officials towards the various categories of youths based on racial backgrounds influence their assessment of these youths. This impairs their ability to correctly assess the dangerousness of these youths.Although there is high rate of recidivism among the racial minorities especially the blacks, it should also be noted that it has turned into a stereotype. This can foster unequal treatment of white and minority offenders in dealing with criminal and juvenile cases and the administration of justice. Consequently, it can trig ger high offense and re-offense rates among the blacks as a reaction to the unfair perception given to them and the racial unfairness they witness in courts. It also opens a loop for recidivism by white offenders since they are not likely to receive a harsh treatment for their crimes. Drug offense is the main cause of rise in prison population in the United States. The percentage of people imprisoned for drug offenses has also risen dramatically and a high population of re-offenders is drug offenders. Spohn and Holleran (2002) state that people will keep way from crimes if they are sure to receive a severe penalty and immediately they commit the crime. People also commit crimes if the benefits obtained from them are higher than the costs. The state therefore needs prescribe tough disciplinary measures for drug offenders such as long prison sentences to deter the present and prospective drug offenders. This will make the cost of offending to be higher than the benefits received from the crime. The state should also remove fines levied on drug offenders because they could pay the fine from proceeds from the same crimes Administration of tough legal measures in based on severity of crime and past criminal record If people who find their way back to the prison for a second time receive a harsher punishment than first time offenders of the same crime, more offenders will be discouraged from reoffending. When administering the harsher punishment, considerations should not be