CJ 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 33: Exclusionary Rule, Fifth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Citizens' Rights: A Barrier to Justice?
Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has tried to seek a balance between the rights of the
accused and police powers to apprehend criminals. Critics assert that the exclusionary rule
and Mirandawarnings undermine effective law enforcement.
The exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings should be abolished
1. The Miranda rule blocks law enforcement from obtaining confessions during
police interrogations. It sets free guilty criminals so they can victimize society
again.
2. If legal “technicalities” such as the exclusionary rule and the Miranda rule were
eliminated, there would be less crime because more criminals would be locked
up and restrained from preying upon the public.
3. There are better means of enforcing constitutional protections than Miranda. One
replacement for Miranda would be to videotape or record police interrogations.
4. Miranda sends the wrong symbolic message: It is more important to protect
criminals' rights than to protect innocent people.
5. There is no empirical evidence to show that the exclusionary rule deters illegal
police conduct. Expanding the legal liability of police departments and setting up
compensation funds for money damages would make the police respect
individual rights more than the exclusionary rule does.
6. The costs of the exclusionary rule are too high—it impedes justice by freeing
thousands of criminals each year and by establishing legal grounds for appeals
that inundate appellate courts.
The exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings should not be abolished
1. The Miranda rule has not impeded the flow of confessions. Confessions are
given as readily now as they were before Miranda.
2. If the exclusionary rule and the Miranda rule were abolished, innocent persons
would have fewer rights. It is impossible to protect the innocent without also
protecting the guilty.
3. If we eliminate Miranda, then police officers could ignore a suspect's request not
to be interrogated. Miranda is necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment's
prohibition against a person's being “compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.”
4. Miranda sends the right message: courts will not condone unlawful police
conduct that produces confessions. This judicial integrity argument holds that a
court should nullify and distance itself from a constitutional violation rather than
admit the evidence and allow the government to profit from its own wrongdoing.
This denial of court assistance to perpetuate a constitutional wrong is needed to
maintain respect for the Constitution and for the independence of the judiciary.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Historically, the u. s. supreme court has tried to seek a balance between the rights of the accused and police powers to apprehend criminals. Critics assert that the exclusionary rule and mirandawarnings undermine effective law enforcement. The exclusionary rule and the miranda warnings should be abolished: the miranda rule blocks law enforcement from obtaining confessions during police interrogations. It sets free guilty criminals so they can victimize society again. The exclusionary rule and the miranda warnings should not be abolished: the miranda rule has not impeded the flow of confessions. Confessions are given as readily now as they were before miranda. If the exclusionary rule and the miranda rule were abolished, innocent persons would have fewer rights. It is impossible to protect the innocent without also protecting the guilty. If we eliminate miranda, then police officers could ignore a suspect"s request not to be interrogated.
