Critical Legal Issues in Criminal Justice

The Exclusionary Rule

Student Name

Course

Date

Introduction

Criminal trials are typically resolved by the facts presented and how they are accepted by the tribunal of fact together with the application of the relevant law . Or quite simply criminal trials are often resolved by a combination of both law and facts . Be that as it may , the facts of the case are pivotal to the ultimate outcome of the criminal trial and as a result the manner in which those facts are collected can not only infringe upon the

defendant 's right to a fair trial , but can undermine the perception of justice . This is the basis of the exclusionary rule . Its main purpose is to devise a standard by which improperly obtained evidence may not be admitted at the criminal trial The standard test by and large mandates that such evidence should be excluded if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value . This is so since improperly obtained evidence can be suspect and that becomes a crucial question for the judge 's discretion to admit that evidence into a trial . This is where the combination of fact and law determines the outcome of a trial . Evidence capable of proving a fact may or may not be admissible by law . Critics have long since debated that the manner in which the exclusionary rule has evolved over time has rendered it useless . The discussion that follows examines these arguments and maintains the position that the exclusionary rule is valuable and plays a part in the pursuit of truth and justice in the criminal trial

Defending the Exclusionary Rule

Guido Calabresi argues that there are basically two sides to the exclusionary rule debate . They are the liberals ' side who argue in favour of the rule as a means of making law enforcement accountable , and the conservatives ' side who maintain that the rule is unnecessary and is only a tool which provides a loophole through which criminals may escape justice (Calabresi , 2003 , 111-118

However , the dynamics of the judicial discretion to exclude or to admit improperly obtained evidence goes beyond a systematic characterization of its uses . In determining whether or not to permit the evidence improperly obtained the judge is required to look at the police officer 's conduct and determine whether or not that search or seizure was reasonable . If not , then invariably the evidence collected as a result of the unreasonable search and /or seizure is typically excluded from the trial (Calabresi , 2003 , 111-118 ) In ascertaining whether or not the search /seizure was reasonable the presiding judge is required to measure a number of variables . For instance he must weigh the individual 's constitutionally protected right to privacy against the police officer 's duty to detect and prosecute criminal conduct for the protection of the public (Calabresi , 2003 , 111-118

Be that as it may , Calabresi maintains that judges often act in a manner that he describes as a hydraulic effect (Calabresi , 2003 111-118 ) As Calabresi explains , a judge who is faced...