The Positives And Negatives About Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary rule pros and cons, law

positives and negatives about the exclusionary rule

The exclusionary rule was formulated during the case between the Weeks and the U.S. This rule prevents the illegal collection of evidence and their submission to the court. This rule was first applied to the case between Mapp an Ohio in 1961. This rule also makes the illegal seizure of evidence and property a legal offense. If it is proved that evidence was gathered illegally, it can be grounds for rejecting such an evidence that can bring down a case against the party against which such evidence was collected.

Exclusionary Rule Pros and Cons

The exlusionary rule has, over the years proved to be an effective tool against the illegal searches and seizures which could have lead to undue harassment of a person. As a constitutional right, the fourth amendment protects you from such forms of abuse of power. Currently it is the only rule that makes the judiciary capable to check for the illegal searches and captures conducted by the police during the investigation of the crime.

Drawbacks of This Rule

In some cases the exclusionary rule creates some troubles also. Justice Scalia wrote to the Supreme Court about the various problems that are created by this rule. The letter explains that the rule could be seen as having a serious negative effect on the powers of the investigating authority to “investigate”. Having to wait for a warrant could give sufficient time for the perpetrators

Exclusionary rule pros and cons, law

law and order in America

of the time to destroy evidence. Even if the evidence is found illegally, the truth cannot be ignored.

Moreover, sometimes it would very difficult to find evidence against powerful people in the right way. This can help some guilty people to escape from the law and enforcement.

The constitution doesn’t saying anything openly about the exclusionary rule that is the right of the public. Due to this, many have questioned constitutional validity of such a rule. A few politicians have tried to bring about a constitutional amendment to try and circumvent the ruling, but haven’t been successful

Results in Increase in Trial Costs

Because of this rule there is a chance for some evidence to be thrown out, so the prosecutors are required to gather more evidence or atleast try to make the evidence seem leagal. This might result in the delay of the trial and a large increase in the cost of investigation.

Hope you got a good idea about the exclusionary rule pros and cons. Students of law would particularly find this topic useful.


The Exclusionary Rule Unraveled

Fourth Amendment

Exclusionary Rule pros and cons in U.S

From the very beginning, when humans started living in societies and realized that “social life” was indispensable  there came the need for certain rules and regulations that governed how one should act in a society. Lawmakers are thus amongst the most powerful men and women in the society. The interpretation of these laws has been left to the judiciary in most democracies. Amendments, repeals and statutory interpretations in the form of precedents guide the judicial machinery in dealing with contradictions sans encumbrance to the supremacy of law.
The famous exclusionary rule thus framed and adopted by the Fourth Amendment is an eye-opener in redefining the rights of the accused when it comes to acquisition of evidence in criminal law. The rule is not devoid of pros and cons and stringent comments from exponents of law.

What is the Exclusionary Rule?
The Fourth Amendment to U.S. Constitution states thus:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”

Controversies remain as experts are at odds over the exclusionary rule pros and cons. The said amendment and the constitutional validity of the principle have been challenged many times as being deterrent in achieving the highest justice in criminal proceedings.

What is unlawful seizure of evidence?
In the light of the Fourth Amendment, no evidence shall be procured by way of unlawful seizure and in the absence of a warrant to the effect; the issuance of such warrants subject to ‘reasonableness’ of the requirement. It is this idea of ‘reasonableness’ that resulted in contradicting interpretations of the rule of law governing the principle set forth by the amendment. It shall under no circumstances be presumed that the law is untouchable by exceptions and limitations either.

How critics look at The Exclusionary rule pros and cons

Fourth Amendment

The pros and cons of the Exclusionary Rule

Like every other controversial rule, the critics stand divided and self-opinionated in the exercise of the Exclusionary rule and eminent personalities like Ronald Reagan demanded its abolition in the case of Illinois vs. Gates which came before the Supreme Court then. There are still others who place strong belief in the rule and consider it as savior of common man against unauthorized trespass to person or property in the name of lawful search or seizure by police and government.

Hope the article was informative. Good Day!