Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a court of law to prove guilt. The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent police misconduct. Before the fourth amendment, evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure could be used in a court of law. I feel that the exclusionary rule is needed in a criminal procedure because it promotes honest truth-seeking amongst law enforcers.
Remedies for the violation of legal rules optimally deter when potential violators rationally expect the value of the breach to be zero (Dripps 8). Therefore, when the law enforcers are not regulated, they can go to extreme lengths to find evidence, and in the process, fail to uphold the constitution.
When police officers do not uphold the law, the public develops a negative perception. The exclusionary rule serves to protect the reputation of the police. If evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a court of law, it implies that the police use constitutional means to gather evidence. Thus, the law enforcers stand out as transparent and integral. Also, the exclusionary rule expects the police to pay for damages incurred when obtaining evidence illegally. Such disciplinary actions prevent the police from engaging in illegal behavior.
In conclusion, I think the exclusionary rule plays a significant role in the justice system. Police officers are required to use legally-obtained evidence. Thus, the justice system can use irrefutable evidence to prove guilt.
Work Cited
Dripps, Donald. “The Fourth Amendment, the Exclusionary Rule, and the Roberts Court: Normative and Empirical Dimensions of the Over-Deterrence Hypothesis.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 85 (2010): 209.