Exclusionary Rule

EXCLUSIONARY RULEThe supreme jurisprudence of the State assures protection of citizens against un practice of lawful intrusions against their constitutionally guaranteed rights One such confirmation of this assurance is the establishment of the . verbalise principle prohibits the use or introduction of any endorse that has been obtained in violation of the rights granted to citizens by no slight than the physical composition . Under this rule , c arless(predicate) of the materiality or relevance of a certain piece of rise to the quest of a crime or an offense , it cannot be admitted by the court br if the same was acquired through the use of agency which constitute unlawful intrusions against the rights of the accused or the person be investigated for the care of an offense . Some would argue that the existence of tell rule makes it difficult to prosecute privates who are guilty of transgressing the law due to the fact that a quantity of evidence would gift to be excluded in view of irregularities attendant in procuring tell evidence . It must be noted however , that regardless of the difficulty in prosecution brought about by the , tell difficulty cannot be considered as enough justification for the abolition of said ruleIt is opined that the should not be abolished as the same does not only recognize and respect the rights of the citizens , but it overly endeavors to establish the policy of gathering evidence within the bounds of law . Without the , prosecution of offenses whitethorn be unproblematic and licated yet this could also lead to giving the authorities unbridled discretion in bringing together evidence and proof implicating an individual to the commission of an offense . In such a theme , in that respect exists a huge possibility that the rights of the person being investigated go away be disregarded as the process of obtaining evidence for purposes of prosecuting an individual would be open to abuse by the authorities .

This would all the way run counter to the protection granted by the Constitution to the rights of the citizensIn upholding the , individuals are assured that evidence put together may only be used against them if the same was acquired in abidance with law . It is noteworthy that the law provides for the proper affair in seizing evidence which is material to a particular case . As illustrated in the 1968 United States case of Terry vs . Ohio (392 U .S . 1 , 88 S CT . 1868 , 20 L . Ed 2d . 889 , absent circumstances which would necessitate obtaining evidence or searching the accused without following the proper procedure laid down by law , the same cannot be considered as reasonable , and hence , any evidence gather is deemed excluded . It thus appears that the serves a dual purpose of ensuring respect for the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every citizen and making sure that lawful means are observed by authorities in obtaining evidence for the prosecution of a certain crime or offense . It is believed that in that respect exists no cogent reason for abolishing the . True , said rule may have made evidence gathering a grueling task for officers , but the rule also turn up how the State values the interests and rights of its citizensREFERENCETerry v . Ohio , 392 U .S . 1 , 88 S CT . 1868 , 20 L . Ed 2d . 889 (1968 ...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .