Discussion Replies Political Science reply to classmate post. 100-150 words each. 1
Question1: Various exclusionary rules have been developed in the United States. Discuss these rules and their impact on the criminal justice process. Do these rules tend to favor the defendant?
The exclusionary rule was made to prevent the government from utilizing evidence collected in violation of the constitution. This was established in the case of Mapp v. Ohio when evidence was obtained in a unreasonable search which is against the fourth amendment. The exclusionary rule stops or prohibits the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence during a trial. Another case that used the exclusionary rule is Miranda V, Arizona which prevents officials from improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements from a suspect in violation of their Fifth Amendment. The exclusionary rule is known for maintaining our constitutional values and they are there to help the people who have had their rights violated by law enforcement. Some people see it differently, they think this allows people who are guilty to get away with crimes they have committed and can cause people who are guilty to get away with no charges at all. Say for example a officer knows there is a house that is running a sex trafficking ring in the house. They go into the house without a warrant which they could have got but there was no time to get one. all the evidence they find in the house is inadmissible in court. This is because it is against the fourth amendment and is not a reasonable search. In my mind the exclusionary rules work in favor of the defendant because even if the person is guilty if the officer did something that was wrong the defended can walk away from the trial free.
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases including deportation hearings.
One of the most common examples that are seen often would be search warrants. When a police officer wants to search a house for whatever reason they must first go through the courts and obtain a search warrant. The search warrant list would then explain what the officers are able to do and what they aren’t able to do. If the officers are caught searching a house without a proper search warrant or if they don’t stay within their limits, they won’t be able to use particular items as evidence when it comes time for court. “The exclusionary rule applies to evidence that’s a direct product of a constitutional violation. It also comes into play when a such violation leads less directly to incriminating evidence” ( Schwartzbach , Page 2).
The rules tend to favor the defendent in my opinion because in order for the police officer to search anything they have to first have probable cause then have to get an approval through the courts before they can do anything. This is for the safety of the suspected criminal, but I feel like it helps with certain police officers picking and choosing which ones they want to search and which ones they don’t. There has to be enough evidence for them to search not just because they feel like it. It also helps things stay equal between everyone.
Schwartzbach, M. What Is The Exclusionary Rule? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-the-exclusionary-rule.html
Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2016). Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States (7th Edition). Cengage Limited. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780357231524
Question 2: After reading chapters 8 and 9 of the textbook, evaluate America’s criminal procedure. Which aspects of criminal procedure do you believe work well and which should be eliminated or modified?
One part of criminal system that is valuable to society is the exclusionary rule. Guidelines against cops constraining blameless suspects into conceding of wrongdoings that they didn’t carry out. Cops accept that driving a person into confessing gives them employer stability, yet all things considered, it shows an absence of trustworthiness, genuineness, and equity in the public authority. This gives residents a negative point of view on the legal system. Another part of criminal technique that functions admirably is the utilization of happy time. This provides detainees with an early arrival of detainment. For instance, suppose somebody went to jail for burglarizing a bank. On the off chance that that individual has not created any issues or issues inside the jail, that individual has shown to be reliable and meriting another opportunity in the public eye. The criminal methodology is making an honest effort. That implies given the sheer caseload against the assets accessible with the laws and guidelines set up, this framework is attempting. “But since every single person has the right to fair treatment, and evidentiary guidelines and guidelines are getting really obliging and explicit they framework is extremely impeded” (Assessing the Theory and Practice of Criminal Sentencing). I feel the accentuation on capturing and arraigning minor medication ownership offenses ought to be radically decreased. The War on Crime has fizzled and has made adverse effects by securing a great many dads, forgetting about children to calculate their life all alone.
Judges are the voice of sentencing, but their freedom of choice is limited by the statutes and sentencing structures existing in a particular state. Since the late 1970s, judicial discretion has been constrained by the creation of sentencing guidelines and other means for structuring the sentencing decision. Some argue these structures unduly restrict a judge’s ability to appropriately weigh the factors that play a role in sentencing, while others feel that additional measures, such as mandatory minimum sentencing laws, are needed to constrain judicial discretion further.
After reading the chapter 8 and 9 I would say that our criminal procedure is doing its best with what it has. What I mean by this is with the number of cases and the little number of resources that are available they are doing the best with what they got. Everything is slowed down or halted because everyone has the right to due process and evidentiary rules and regulations are getting more constraining and specific it causes everything to be a long and slow process. Something I would change would be people who have minor drug possession offenses. If we did not have the war on drugs and locked up millions of people because of minor offenses, we could have used the resources that were used on all of those individuals for other crimes which need more resources for. Say like the millions of people we put in prison for these crimes could be released and replaced with people who should be there more. For example, I work with a lot of CPD officers and detectives and one case that always drove a few of them crazy was a man was convicted of murder and had a life sentence. He was released on parole after eight years because of over population. We need to use the little bit of resources we have to our advantage. The one thing I would modify is due process. We need to update our courtroom testimonial policies and procedures because our system was made a long time ago where there was no camera or body cams on officers or on every corner of every street. When there is a video of the defendant hitting someone, driving reckless or so on then all of the process is not needed and we need a way to make due process have a express lane or be able to make it faster.