University of Phoenix
Feb 07, 2006
Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished?
Does the exclusionary rule protect the guilty? For years people have argued if the exclusionary rule is significantly helping the rather obvious criminal. By abolishing the exclusionary rule some people fear the whole purpose of the fourth amendment would be violated by using evidence attained illegally. If the proper procedures are not taken when seizing evidence, the evidence is inadmissible in a trial. In certain cases there has been substantial evidence, that with no doubt would prove the accused guilty but because the evidence was gathered illegally the criminal escaped a scott free. Years ago with the common law background any evidence found if it was crucial and reliable it would be used whether or not it was acquired illegally. If they put all the illegally found evidence aside a guilty person could without a doubt go free. Innocent people could sacrifice their protection under the fourth amendment of their right to not be unreasonably searched if in reality they are innocent. Authorities such as the police should be punished for searching a person with no possibility of being guilty, each case investigated at a later date. I believe if a police officer has any doubt no matter what it is, that a certain person is suspicious of a criminal act he or she should be able to search the individual. People should understand that they have to give up some rights for their own safety. The thought of someone getting away for the mere fact that an authority could not find an adequate legal reason to search; even though there could be doubt enough to catch the criminal should be enough for every innocent individual to consent search upon themselves. The exclusionary rule is not helping the innocent people. If a weapon with enough evidence is found to prove a person's guilt it should...