Miranda
and the Exclusionary Rule
In
the United States, one of the ways that the judicial branch
checks the executive branch is through the exclusionary rule.
Under this policy, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible
in court. While this applies primarily to Fourth Amendment
protections against illegal search and seizure, it also applies
to the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
This means that if the police fail to inform a suspect of
his or her right to remain silent, and the suspect confesses,
the confession cannot be introduced as evidence in the suspect's
trial.
There
has been a great deal of controversy over this, so in recent
years, the Courts have relaxed the standard a bit. For instance,
courts now apply what is known as the "good faith"
exception. Under this standard, if police believed, for instance,
that a search warrant was legal, but later found out that
it was technically flawed, the evidence obtained in the
search would still be admissible.
In
many democratic nations, violations of police procedure
are handled quite differently. For example, in England,
if the police violate criminal procedure, they are reprimanded;
they might be punished or sued. However, the illegally obtained
evidence is still admissible in court.
Questions to Consider:
- What
is the purpose of the exclusionary rule?
- What
are some potential consequences of the exclusionary rule?
- What
is your opinion of how violations of police procedure
are handled in England?
- Should
the United States keep or abolish the exclusionary rule?
Explain your answer.
- Some
criticize the exclusionary rule as only protecting guilty
people. Critics argue that it does nothing, for example, to protect against
an illegal search or a failure to give Miranda warnings
that produce no evidence or confession. Do you agree or
disagree with this criticism? Explain.
|
