The topic on exclusionary rule has generated an immense debate, pitting two sides; those supporting its ban and those opposed to its ban. Nevertheless, there are different reasons that justify the need to uphold this rule. Above all, the exclusionary rule should not be abolished because it gives the courts powers to ban the bringing in of evidence obtained illegally. Precisely, this rule limits introduction of incriminating or non-incriminatory evidence acquired using fraudulent methods. Therefore, the existence if the exclusionary rule ensures that ethics are upheld in the courts and the criminal justice system at large. Speaking of fraudulent methods, this connotes to case where investigators coerce witnesses to provide false evidences against criminal offenders. For this reason, the exclusionary rule ensures that all the due processes are adhered to from the time of investigating crimes up to the times when final verdicts are given in courts (Maclin, 2012). This gives a further justification on the need to uphold the exclusionary rule.
Another factor that supports the need to uphold the exclusionary rule is the fact that this rule is fundamental in ensuring that the privileges of individuals are protected from abuse by the powers accorded to law enforcement officers and the government’s powers at large. It is crucial to note that since the inception of the exclusionary rule, criminal law procedure in our country have been fair when compared to other contexts all around the world, which lack the exclusionary rule. This gives a further justification on the need to oppose banning of this rule. Overall, repealing the exclusionary rule should not would result in ignorance of basic privileges accorded to criminal offenders as well as victims. While it is true that exclusionary rule is a stringent rule (Maclin, 2012), it assures that there is honesty in the criminal justice system, which limits the occurrence on any abuse.
References
Maclin, T. (2012). The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule. London: Oxford University Press.
