Professor Frank de la Torre
November 10,2022Term Paper
Advocate for the Exclusionary Rule to be preserved in America. Your rationale must be based on the law, studies, articles, cases, or web sites that you learned during this course.
One of the main goals of the criminal justice system, namely the identification of all relevant facts (often known as "the truth") as the basis for the verdict, is obstructed by the exclusion of crucial evidence from the trial. As a result, many adversarial and inquisitorial criminal justice systems have long viewed laws demanding the exclusion of relevant evidence as a barrier to the pursuit of the truth, severely limiting the scope of their applicability. However, the implementation of exclusionary measures has increased dramatically throughout the course of the 20th century. An increasing number of legal systems have chosen to employ the exclusion of evidence as a response to violations of the regulations governing the gathering of evidence. 1
Exclusion can be justified by the argument that under adversarial systems, a party who obtains evidence unlawfully should not be permitted to profit from the consequences of the violation. Since the evidence in inquisitorial systems is viewed as "belonging" to the court rather than to one of the parties, it is more challenging to rely on this argument of exclusion. Nevertheless, there may be compelling justifications for a court to reject a piece of evidence. Individual or institutional interests, such as the image of justice or fairness, may also give rise to concern (e.g., vindication of the rights of the individual affected by the violation). These worries could all be so compelling that they outweigh the procedural advantages of having any available evidence at the trial that is pertinent.
Every legal system recognizes the use of excluding rules as a response to grave violations. Everyone agrees that testimony collected through torture should not be utilized in legal proceedings. 2 Exclusionary criteria, however, vary widely in extent and content beyond this common core. In many jurisdictions, it is frequently against the law to introduce any evidence that was obtained unlawfully. Other states are more cautious, recognizing only a few "absolute" exclusionary clauses and leaving exclusion in other situations up to the court's discretion, or allowing the admission of evidence obtained illegally if the interest in "seeking the truth" outweighs the stain of its illegal acquisition.
Legal systems simultaneously differ in terms of the objectives they claim to accomplish by eradicating evidence gathered illegally. The integrity of fact-finding or the judicial system, depending on the system, is the primary factor that encourages the removal of evidence. In other systems, preventing police misbehavior is given significant importance. The main justification for exclusion in others is the defense of individual rights. The general trend of protecting human rights over the preceding few decades has given these issues a boost.
In this chapter,