Mirfield 356)
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to afford the defendant all his or her rights of privacy and to maintain fair proceedings in the gathering of evidence. Unlawful search and seizure is a serious offence, committed by investigators and regardless of the value of the evidence recovered there is no clear acceptance of the principle as a tactic in a "fair" proceeding. If the police and/or prosecution was given free reign to gain and submit evidence in whatever manner they could the accused would surely not have a fair trial. This is why in fact the police are separate from the prosecution in any case, to ensure that both are not somehow responsible for actions that can violate the rights of the defendant.
Many people have argued against the exclusionary rule, as it frequently results in overturned or unattained convictions of presumably guilty parties and is said to create an undue burden on investigation and prosecution of criminals. Many law enforcement officials and investigators contend that if evidence is particularly damming that it should be allowed even if it was achieved through dubious means as it ensures conviction of a criminal. The argument has arisen frequently in criminal and civil courts but is rarely taken seriously as laws and presence have been developed to ensure as much protection for the individual as possible, with regard to the individual's defense against the state. On the other hand those who argue in favor of the exclusionary rule expound on the fact that all people have the right to privacy and/or a fairly offered confession. It is clear that the exclusionary rule hinders the pursuit of truth in criminal cases, though it ensures that law enforcement and/or prosecution does not unfairly obtain evidence against the defense.
Constitutional rights are essential tot the development of a free society and people have the right to privacy, reasonable protection from unlawful search and seizure, and probably most importantly protection from cruel and unusual punishment, such as that...
There is really no alternative means to the protection of these rights, though it would seem that certain evidence might need to be excluded from the exclusionary rule or the exclusionary rule not be applied when permission has been obtained by proxy, as in the case of the property owner giving permission to search, in that the violation of the law is usually an exclusionary principle for occupancy of any location, be it a room for rent or an apartment. Though this would seem to give primary property owner greater rights than tenants.
No matter how you look at tit here is no real way to dismiss the utilization of certain rules to protect and/or exclude evidence. The defendant must retain his or her constitutional rights. The prosecution and investigators must also be accountable to these rights to ensure that the judicial system in this nation does not become a free for all of wrongful or unfair convictions, motivated by speed and necessity rather than good skilled police and legal work. It is also important to note that many legal violations of the disclosure laws and events that would elicit the use of the exclusionary rule have ended in false convictions, giving further proof to the efficacy of the law.
Works Cited
Hall, Jerome. General Principles of Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.
The Justice Project, Expanded Discovery in Criminal Cases, 2007, March 15, 2008 from http://www.thejusticeproject.org/solution/Discovery/discovery-lr.pdf.
Mirfield, Peter. Silence, Confessions, and Improperly Obtained Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Myers, Therese M. "Reciprocal Discovery Violations: Visiting the Sins of the Defense Lawyer on the Innocent Client." American Criminal Law Review 33.4 (1996): 1277-1298.
Proposed Codification of Disclosure of Favorable Information under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11 and 16." American Criminal Law Review 41.1 (2003): 93.
