Raven Jones
David Harper
CJA/364
September 17, 2012
Exclusionary Rule

Have you ever thought about what our country would be like if we did not have any rules or regulations? It would be a world of chaos, and would not be enjoyable. One rule we could never live without is the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is protected by the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence collected that violates the criminal’s right can not be used in court. The only way that illegal evidence may be used in a court room, is IF and WHEN the lawyer can prove to the judge that there is nothing linking misconduct by the police and gathering the evidence. The exclusionary rule has one sole purpose. That purpose is to deter police misconduct instead of punishing the errors of judges. The rationale for the exclusionary rule that was given by the courts was unclean hands. Unclean hands is a legal document which states that a person that is asking for judgment may not receive any help from the court if they have any unethical actions in regards to the lawsuit (“The Exclusionary Rule, n.d.”). There are many different exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Good faith exception is a document that gives exception to the exclusionary rule when evidence is collected illegally. The only way it can be submitted in court is if the police officer is acting in good faith. Another exception to this rule is if a second un-poisoned or untainted source had a major role in finding the evidence. If there is evidence that can be used to criminate an individual during the cross examination, it also can and will be considered an exception. There have been many objections to the exclusionary rule. There have been arguments that the exclusionary rule in no way helps the people who are innocent of police mishaps. It has also been stated that the exclusionary rule has caused police officers to commit perjury. One benefit to the exclusionary rule is that it sets the sanction closely to the governments gain, which is approximately the sanction suggested by optimal deterring theory. The benefits and costs of the exclusionary rule are look at in light of one reason, and that reason is to deter any illegal police action that would take place in the future. A cost of the exclusionary rule is extremely high. There are many reasons the cost is so high. The reasons range from covering up police misconduct all the way to paying for a prosecution that was lost. Police Officers have enough reason to commit perjury when telling about their search and seizures. In some departments there has been some observation of perjury happening more often than none. When looking at alternatives for the exclusionary rule, you must take into consideration the money it will cost. Then you must ask yourself is this going to stop the police violence. In the United Kingdom, they do not have any written documents showing the laws and telling them right and wrong. They have judge made rules. The English are more worried about a fair trial more than anything else. In 1982, the Canadians broke away from the English to have their own laws called the Canadian Constitution. Canada’s exclusionary rule is more like England’s, than any other. In order for the exclusionary rule to keep the future police misconduct to a minimum, the exclusion of evidence has to be given to the officer that was involved so that he or she can learn the reasons why it was excluded. Then he or she must tell their superior officers why he or she will do better in the future.

Reference:
The Exclusionary Rule. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.habermas.org/exclusion.htm