NCJ Number
84447
Date Published
1974
Length
0 pages
Annotation
In a televised mock court setting, opposing advocates and their witnesses argue for and against the exclusionary rule, which prohibits admission of illegally seized evidence against a defendant on trial.
Abstract
Those espousing abolition of the exclusionary rule argue that all evidence with some value in the search for truth should be admitted. The United States is the only Western country with this inflexible rule, which usually works out to the guilty offender's benefit, discouraging law enforcement and prosecution efforts. Instead of the exclusionary rule, an offending officer should be fined and punished for illegally seizing evidence, which would still be admissible against a criminal defendant. The present situation encourages crime, denies truth, and breeds disrespect for the concept of criminal justice. Those defending the exclusionary rule base their arguments on respect for the Constitution and argue that the rule limits police powers, enhances law enforcement credibility, and protects powerless citizens against violations of their basic human rights. They view the proposed sanctions against police officers illegally seizing evidence as unlikely to be enforced. Without the exclusionary rule, police abuses would continue to jeopardize the underprivileged in society; with the exclusionary rule, police officers' professionalization and constraint improve their image in the community and heighten respect for the laws they protect.