The exclusionary rule states that evidence imporperly collected by the police will not be used in a criminal case and any evidence discovered as a rsult of the improper search or seizure must not be used as evidence in court. 1. This only effects evidence incidcating guilt for a crime. 2. Only criminals and their lawyers benefit from the exclusionary rule. 3. The only people penalized by the exclusionary rule are the victims of the criminals past or future crimes. Should valid evidence be admissible in court regardless of the source with civil and criminal sanctions for improperly obtaining the evidence?
The exclusionary rule is, by and large, the only thing that works to protect the rights of the accused. Civil and criminal penalties against law enforcement rarely work, look no further than the Rodney King trial. I think a combination of civil and criminal penalties WITH the exclusionary rule is needed.
Tell me how it protects the rights of an innocent man accused of a crime? I can see how it protects the rights of a vicious murderer. If the police look to far in a car, find a bloody knife, it will be supressed as evidence, any statements the murderer makes will be supressed, any other physical evidence found will be surpressed and the murderer will be released with an apology and be free to kill again. But, if the man is innicent, there would be no bloody knife, no inciminating statments, no other evidence found. So how does this protect the innocent person accused of a crime? And, when you say is the only thing that works to protect the criminal, what else have we tried?
All people who are merely accused of a crime are innocent. It protects all of us from unconstitutional intrusions by making it clear that unconstitutional government actions will be void. And, in your example, it protects the suspect, who is innocent until proven guilty, by making the government respect his Constitutional rights, which he continues to have. Given a choice of releasing a criminal or protecting the rights of individuals, I will take the latter every time. The worst serial killers in history cannot hold a candle to the dangerous, destructive, scary, powers of an unchecked government. There are limits on the exclusionary rule that protect police actions taken in good faith. When we talk about the exclusionary rule precluding evidence, let's be clear: We are only talking about police who deliberately take action that violates the rights of the accused. If police know there is no benefit to doing so, they are far less likely to do it. We have a combination of civil and criminal penalties in effect now for bad behavior by police. Too often, however, those penalties are ineffective.
It should and I'll tell you why. I know you know this but this is an open discussion, a judge is best placed to decide, on his or her discretion, if evidence should be admitted. But a judge should not be bound by a hard and fast rule or justice will be denied. In my country (Australia) the exclusionary rule has been decided in the High Court of Australia and, this is just a rough description, the rule is that the judge must decide on whether or not evidence apparently gained illegally (the term "illegally)" doesn't mean by criminal activity, just that it goes against the current accepted methods) can be weighed and the measure used is to assess its probative value as against its prejudicial value. This follows a line of reasoning well embedded in the law here when it comes to admissibility of evidence. The leading case is Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22; (197 141 CLR 54 (14 June 197.
"All people who are merely accused of a crime are innocent." No, they're not. The proper fantasy is "he's presumed to be innocent". But, he is most certainly not innocent. Even someone who is acquited in court has not been found to be innocent. No, it's just not guilty and that might be because the evidence of the guilt has been suppressed. In my example, where the police improperly found the knife used by the murderer. If they had searched my car, they wouldn't have found the knife and I would have gone about my business and, if I chose, file a complaint. Obviously, it does not stop our unchecked government from trampling on our rights. The exclusionary rule doesn't really concern our unchecked government. No, what it does is free guilty criminals to continuing victimizing the innocent. Penalizing the victims of the crime and the future victims of the criminal is a wonderful solution, isn't it? But, for defense lawyers, they cannot concieve of a law that would penalize offenders and allow evidence of crimes to be heard in court. In a city in Colorado a man was convicted of murder. The defense attorneies convinced the court that the prosecution had concealed evidence that should have been given to the defense. The two attorneys were were involved, and had since been made judges, got a very stern remprimand. The police officer involved is on trial for numerous felonies. I suspect the trial of the police officer will have a significant effect on the behavior of police officers when attorneys ask them to conceal evidence and commit perjury. The stern reprimand on the attorneys will have no effect on other attorneys save a good laugh. In my opinion, valid evidence should be used in court to the benefit of the victims of the crime. If the police violated the law in finding the evidence, prosecute them, but don't turn the criminals loose.
The Framers of the Bill of Rights were all about the rights of the accused and the convicted. At least four of the first ten amendments protect those accused or convicted of crimes. 4th amendment: protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 5th amendment: protects against double jeopardy; protects against forced self-incrimination; protects life and liberty via requirement of due process. 6th amendment: protects right to a speedy and public trial; protects right to an impartial jury; protects right to confront witnesses against him; protects right to an attorney. 8th amendment: protects against excessive fines or bail; protects against cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure if you've ever served on a jury for a criminal trial. I have and I'll tell you that one of the first things the judge said to us was that the defendant was innocent until proven guilty. Additionally, we were instructed that the fact that a defendant is charged with a crime, in and of itself, is not evidence of guilt. While it's important to protect victims, it's also important to protect the falsely accused. No one should be forced to give up their life or liberty for something they didn't do. I think you're confused about what rights are. The 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures is specifically in place to protect the accused. It isn't there to prosecute police who violate the right. In your example, the "criminal's" rights would still be violated, even if the policeman was prosecuted. Plus, the "criminal" wouldn't necessary be released if a piece of evidence is found to be inadmissible. It just means the accused would be granted a new trial and that piece of evidence would not be submitted to the jury.
Those types of rules are to protect the innocent so that cops don't go around just breaking into people's homes, etc on the off chance that they find something.
Smash23: "I think you're confused about what rights are. The 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures is specifically in place to protect the accused. It isn't there to prosecute police who violate the right. In your example, the "criminal's" rights would still be violated, even if the policeman was prosecuted. Plus, the "criminal" wouldn't necessary be released if a piece of evidence is found to be inadmissible. It just means the accused would be granted a new trial and that piece of evidence would not be submitted to the jury." Thanks for making my point. The exclusionary rule exists to free guilty criminals. It victimizes the victims, again, for the errors or misconduct of the police. I don't know why you insist on putting criminal in quotes. Panzer, the exclusionary rule benefits no one except guilty criminals. If police officers were fired and/or prosecuted for entering the homes of innocent people of the off-chance they might find something, the remedy would work. But, I understand the overwhelming desire of some to free criminals. I just think it's misguided, wrong, and doesn't consider the victims, future victims, or society. A man guilty of killing a mother and her 3-year old daughter was freed thanks to the exclusionary rule. He then killed another woman. When asked if they felt any responsibility for the subsequent death the defense attorneys were shocked and said, "Of course not. Absolutely none." Sadly, I suspect they were telling the truth.
The simple answer is no. The exclusionary rule is correct because it limits the violations of the Rights of the People. Were it not in place then "police" would stop at nothing as there would be no "penalty" for violation of the Rights of the People. In fact I'm going to go one step further in that the exclusionary rule isn't expansive enough. I addressed this in a local newpaper when it was noted that law enforcement was allowed to lie to obtain information and/or a confession from a suspect. It is actually a felony for the individual to lie to law enforcement but lying by law enforcement was considered to be a preferred method of interrogation. That's BS. Law enforcement should be held to the same criteria as any citizen. The police interrogator should not be allowed to be dishonest (i.e. a liar) in the performance of their duties. If they are willing to lie during an investigation then it leads to a greater probability of them lying in court. I've been on a jury and most members of a jury believe the testamony of law enforcement over that of the defendant. If the jury was aware that the law enforcement officer was a known liar related to their job outside of court then they would be far less likely to believe them in court. Any information obtained from the accused though dishonest means (e.g. lying to the accused) by law enforcement, regardless of whether they are guilty nor not, should be disqualified from being presented in court under the exclusionary rule. Let us remember one very important fact. Criminal justice is not about obtaining a conviction. It is about ensuring the innocent are protected. The point of a criminal trial is less about convicting the guilty more about acquiting the innocent. Our common statements related to criminal justice reflect this were we state, "innocent until proven guilty" and "it's better to allow ten guilty people to go free than to convict an innocent man." If we look at the Bill of Rights related to criminal prosecution it's about affording protections to the accused and not about convicting someone. The Rights of the Accused are far more important in a criminal justice system than obtaining a conviction.
This shows a lack of understanding related to criminal justice. Perhaps the best way to address this is to cite a passage from the Declaration of Independence that I use in my signature. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html The purpose of government is to protect the Rights of the People. Many believe that the criminal justice system is about punishing the "guilty" but that is not true. Our government has no role or responsibility to punish anyone based upon the ideals for America as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It has an expressed role and responsibility to protect the inalienable Rights of the People. The only crimes that should ever exist in America should reflect the violation of the Rights of the People. Whether it's a violation of the Right of Property or the Rights of the Person the law should exist that identifies this violation of an inalienable Right. Admittedly we have laws that do not reflect a violation of anyone's inalienable Rigths such as "victimless crime" laws and under the ideals upon which America was founded these laws should not exist. So the role and responsibility of government, as expressed, is to protect our inalienable Rights. Laws against robbery reflect a violation of the Right of Property. Laws against battery and murder reflect a violation of our Rights of Person and they are justifiable laws that we seek to enforce. People have other inalienable Rights as well such as the Right of Privacy and the Right of Property that, were it not for the exclusionary rule, would be violated by law enforcement. Law enforcement, a component of our government, cannot argue that it is protecting our Rights when it violates them. As I've noted our government is not delegated with any authority to "punish" a person but instead is directed to protect the people under the ideals for America. Incarceration is not about punishment but instead should be solely related to protecting society from someone that has demonstrated that they would willingly violate the Rights of the Individual if left in society. Incarceration is an infringement upon the Right of Liberty of the Individual but it is a pragmatic infringement so long as it is applied to the least extent possible to ensure the protection of the Inalienable Rights of other individuals. We set a high value on the inalienable Rights of the Individual and justifiably so. There is no fundamental difference between law enforcement violating the Rights of Property of the Individual by seizing documents without a warrant and probable cause than there is of a bank robber stealing money from the bank. In reality the violation of the Rights of the Individual by an agent of the government is far worse than the violation of the Rights of an Individual by another individual. Allowing the government to violate the Rights of the Individual can never be logically allowed. We have a choice. We could prosecute any law enforcement officer for the violation of the Rights of the People but if we do that then no one would logically want to be a law enforcement officer. We cannot excuse the violation as it is worse than than a similiar violation by a person so what do we do? For pragmatic reasons we've adopted the exclusionary rule which discourages law enforcement from violating the Rights of the Individual in the performance of their duties. On a final note let us remember that the exclusionary rule is based upon the Supreme Law of the Land which is the US Constitution. As the Supreme Law of the Land any violation of that law is a greater crime than any other law in the United States. A violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th or 14th Amendment is a far greater violation of the law than the violation of subordinate laws like laws against murder or robbery. The hierarcy of laws in the United States establishes this as a fact. If a law enforcement officer violates the 4th Amendment to obtain information on a possible crime then law enforcement has committed a greater crime than robbery or even murder. Let's be accurate in assigning blame. If a law enforcement officer violates the Constitution and a "guilty" person goes free it isn't because of the exclusionary rule but instead it's the fault of the law enforcement officer. Blame law enforcement officer(s) for a guilty person going free and don't blame the exclusionary rule. It is the law enforcement officer(s) that committed a greater violation of the law.
Absolutely 100% correct. An overreaching government is far more a thing to fear than a "criminal" gone free. Criminals work hard to kill one person. An unchecked government kills millions with the stroke of a pen.
Many seem to fail to understand this simple fact. On another thread there was a member that posted pictures of "gang-bangers" and expressed the feeling that these individuals scared them. I was tempted to post a picture of several post WW II presidents as a contrasting position. I don't know how many innocent people have been killed by gangs in the entire history of the United States but could easily guess it might be in the tens of thousands. On the other hand based solely upon executive orders issued by our president's since WW II over 5 million innocent people have died. Who presents a greater threat? Gang-bangers that historically might have killed in the tens of thousands or presidents that have killed in the millions? As noted though the deaths of innocent people by presidents relates to an over-reaching of presidential power and that is what we should fear the most in America. It is far more dangerous to us than the relatively small threat that gangs represent to Americans. Both are a problem but government tyranny is a far greater threat than anything an individual might do.
Balderdash. A person becomes guilty of a crime when he commits it, and not a second later. The exclusionary rule is not necessary to achieve that. Trite, but clearly not true. Actually you pretty much have that backwards, since the amendment is clearly written as a restriction on government, which logically extends to government agents. No they would not, because everyone who violates a just law loses that portion of his unalienable rights which would otherwise exclude him as a legitimate object of LE scrutiny, wherefore any recognition of such rights is a grant from the government, and nothing in 4A makes any such grant. The point is, justice is not served by releasing the criminal on such grounds. That would certainly be great for criminals. Nonsense. An officer who lies to a criminal so as to induce that criminal to expose himself as such acts in the best interests of the People, who, if they have any sense, will appreciate that when he testifies in court to having done so. Baloney. Justice is no more served by acquitting the guilty than it is by convicting the innocent. If the guilty man goes on to kill 100 people, is it still better? Too bad you don't understand what that means... ...wherefore you also don't understand that people have an unalienable right to live among morally like-minded people, which right is abridged if they are prohibited from prosecuting drug addicts, perverts and other undesirables who presume to openly violate community standards. More accurately, it is rationalized on that basis, as nothing in the Constitution requires such a rule. State criminal law is not "subordinate" to federal law, because it is made not in pursuance of the Constitution or federal law, but under the quasi-sovereign authority of the states respectively. Of course it is.
Shiva: "If a law enforcement officer violates the 4th Amendment to obtain information on a possible crime then law enforcement has committed a greater crime than robbery or even murder." That's absolutely insane but does show the lengths liberals will go to in order to keep criminals out of prison.
When any government agency violates the Constitutionally protected Rights of any individual it violates the Constitutionally protected Rights of all the People. This is neither a liberal or a conservative position but instead it's a Constitutional position. Sadly today most so-called conservatives and liberals don't believe in the US Constitution anymore. About the only people that still believe in a government under the absolute authority of the US Constitution these days are the Libertarians.
The issue is control of the police. In common law countries the law is used to control the police so that the results of unlawful actions will be excluded from evidence. The theory is that there is no benefit to police in behaving unlawfully to gain evidence as it will not be admitted anyway. In civil law countries where Roman Law is the precedent there is much more direct control of the police, especially during serious investigations. In France, for example, an examining magistrate will lead a serious crime inquiry and direct police in the investigation, issue warrants and conduct interrogations, the police are assistants rather than lead investigators. The rules of evidence are different in both forms of jurisdiction reflecting the different approaches. Punishing police for getting evidence in breach of the rules is possible but the breach has to be deliberate, for example, beating a suspect until they confess, clearly assault or something more serious. But what if a police officer makes a mistake in obtaining evidence, should they be disciplined, possibly sacked from their job? It's a matter of degree.
You're question contains and invalid presumption, that the evidence is "valid". The exclusionary rule does not exclude valid evidence. Evidence improperly obtained is not "valid". A cop could beat a prisoner with a bat till he confessions, but that confession is not valid evidence, and should not be admissible in court.
When an individual police officer either through error or intentional misconduct violates a Contitutional provision and it's known in advance he should face civil and criminal sanctions. For anyone to say his error is worse than homicide is insane. Quite mad, Shiva. An officer was waiting at a home securing the premises while a warrant was obtained. It was a very hot day and he decided to get a drink of water. When he opened a cabinet next to the sink to get a glass he saw evidence. Now, in your bizaree world, was his error tantamount to murder? Was it really? And while we're at it Shiva, would you remind me of the part of the Constitution you claim to care about that says the proper remedy to that error is to release the murderer or the rapist?
Your objection contains an invalid presumption, namely that your preferred operating definition of validity should be controlling.
How is it insane to say that a government unbounded by the rule of law is less dangerous than one individual malcontent? Again, the very POINT of the Constitution is the fact that our Founding Fathers recognized quite correctly that a government is far more dangerous an entity than an individual criminal.
Regarding the "unbounded government". I don't think PT is suggesting that should happen. Government isn't of itself a dangerous entity, the US is a grown up democracy now, not a bunch of former British colonies trying to keep free from British imperialism.
It has been over 200 years since Thomas Paine penned these words and the truth to them has never changed. As the author of pamphlet Common Sense release annonymously in January 1776 Thomas Paine is often cited as being the primary force behind the American Revolution. The United States was founded on minarchism where the purpose of government was to protect the inalienable Rights of the People. This philosophy of government was based upon the "best state" of government which meant it was the least intrusive upon the lives and Rights of the People. Every single law and regulation created by government infringes to a greater or lessor extent upon the freedom and liberty of the People. During the drafting of the US Constitution the Federalists initially argued that there was no need for a Bill of Rights. Their argument was "we have not delegated the authority to our government to violate the inalienable Rights of the People" but the anti-Federalists argued that based upon historical precedent our government would violate those Rights. The anti-Federalists were obviously correct and later Madison, the unproclaimed leader of the Federalists, was the most instrumental individual in crafting our Bill of Rights. Our government has grown exponentially since it's founding intruding into all aspects of our personal lives. Each and every one of those intrusions is an infringement upon our inalienable Rights. What we cannot allow and what we should never allow is the infringement upon a Constitutionally protected Right. As noted previously the "exclusionary rule" is a measure that is both justifiable and necessary for the protection of our inalienable Rights. The violation of our Constitutional Rights represents a far greater harm to the American People than all of the murders committed by criminals since the founding of America. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died protecting our inalienable Rights that are protected by the US Constitution and to allow those acting based upon the authority of our government to violate those Rights is to literally spit on the graves of every American that has served and sacrified their life for the United States. Our government has long since left the "best state" of government and is on a continuing pathway towards the "worst state" and we must make every effort to not only stop that trend but to reverse it.
A bloody knife, blood soaked clothing, the victims wallet with identification intact, hell, the victim in the freezer. This is all valid evidence. It's all valuable evidence. But, if the initial arrest was flawed then that evidence is exluded by the exclusionary rule. I'm sorry you have such a difficult time with the concept of validity. The goal, Iremon, should not be to release dangerous criminals. And, I realize short attention spans seem endemic, but I'm in favor of punishing the people who err or violate instead of punishing the victims of past and future crimes which is your preference. Shiva: Where in the Constitution is the exclusionary rule mandated? It's a poor solution to a problem but it's a solution that defense attorneys love.
