Criminal Justice

Question

These answers MUST be thoroughly answered, typed, NO MORE THAN TWO pages in length, double-spaced, 12-point font, Times New Roman or similar font. Answer these questions: What do you think? Should the exclusionary rule be abolished outright, given “good-faith” exceptions, or kept in its present form? If one admits that there are problems in its current application, what realistic alternatives might restrain law enforcement from potentially conducting blatant and flagrant searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

please cite the book (APA) style: Neubauer, David W.; Fradella, Henry F.. America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System Wadsworth Publishing. Kindle Edition

Answer

Reducing Crime

Enforced in 1961, the exclusionary rule stipulates that an error in the enforcement of a law, no matter how trivial or technical, may be used to completely dismiss a case in court regardless of the magnitude of the crime. Critics of this rule argue that it amounts to the corruption of the judicial system as it allows guilty individuals to walk scotch-free on the premise of a misdeed in the enforcement of the law. In my view, however, the exclusionary law should by no means be abolished from the American judicial system as it offers more merits than demerits to the people of America. Recognizing human fault and sincere errors, the exclusionary rule has a provision for making “good-faith” exceptions. This exception excuses genuine mistakes made by law enforcement officials in the process of gathering evidence and it prohibits a case from being thrown out based purely on the exclusionary rule.

ORDER CRIMINAL JUSTICE PAPER NOW

The rule also protects the integrity of the court in the sense that illegally or unscrupulously obtained evidence cannot be admissible in court. This ensures that rulings made and judgments passed are based solely on credible sources that can be traced. Moreover, the rule discourages the unlawful obtaining of evidence, for example, through shady deals behind the courts. This situation applies to law enforcement officers who may conduct a search without a warrant or lawyers who may gain access to the opposing counsel’s documents. Thus, the exclusionary rule plays a critical role in maintaining the sanity and sanctity of the American judicial system.

            Nevertheless, certain changes need to be made to make the rule an effective component of the court system. For instance, the rule should restrain law enforcement officers from conducting scandalous searches which are in violation of the Fourth Amendment by requiring that they obtain and produce duly signed and admissible search warrants and allowing it to be scrutinized by the premise owner before conducting any searches (Neubauer & Fradella, 2015). Additionally, law enforcement officials must declare and ascertain the source of all the evidence presented in court for a case before using it to advance their case.

Overall, the exclusionary rule should not be done away within its entirety. Rather, it should be modified and its implementation stepped up once all the necessary changes are made. This will send a strong message that corruption and unconstitutional practices in evidence obtainment can never be tolerated within the American judicial system.

References

Neubauer, D. W. & Fradella, H. F. (2015). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Princeton, NJ: Wadsworth Publishing.

Get a 15 % discount on an order above $ 30
Use the following coupon code :
tpc15
Our Services:
  • Essay
  • Custom Essays
  • Homework Help
  • Research Papers
  • Argumentative Essay
  • Assignment
  • College Papers
  • Powerpoint Presentation
  • Dissertation
  • Thesis Paper
  • Dissertation
  • Editing Services
  • Review Writing
  • Lab Report
  • Book Report
  • Article Critique
  • Case Study
  • Coursework
  • Term Paper
  • Personal Statement
Order a customized paper today!