…
I answered “Other” because, IMHO and with all due respect, that is an incorrect summation of the exclusionary rule.
What Doctor Who said. I support the exclusionary rule, and actually think it needs to be expanded some, but the summation in the OP is way off base.
Me too. i voted yes, because i support it. But I don’t buy into the language used in the OP.
Do you:
- support the exclusionary rule as defined in law?
- support the exclusionary rule defined by Brainiac?
- not support it?
Another vote for YES, but object to the language of the OP.
The purpose of the rule and the law is to enforce the Rule of Law, and to ensure that the agents of the law are also subject to that same rule of law. Otherwise they can freely break the law to gather evidence to be used against you, and you’ve got jack-all to say about it. At that point, the Rule of Law is meaningless, and we become a Police State, in which we are subject to whatever whims the police decide to use against us.
You had an option to vote other and explain. That’s the choice. If you don’t like the choice, make your own poll. I’m serious.
Other - It is a court’s job to determine truth, but it would be dangerous to let the police use immoral methods to collect evidence. It would be unfeasible to try and verify that the police had no ill motive when the evidence was discovered.
Do we have to use misleading or loaded questions? I’m serious, I don’t think people are ripping you, they are just questioning the quality of the poll. Don’t take it personally, take it as feedback. Sheesh.
I don’t think he was taking it personally. He said he was serious, why not accept that. But you are taking it very personally, so you should consider how your own emotions are projected on others.
Myself, when I’ve been on juries a couple of times, and discovered afterward that things had been excluded, felt something was wrong. I don’t mind punishing rogue cops, but letting violent people go seems to put the burden on society, not the rogue cops.
I voted other. The purpose of the courts is to determine the truth. All relevant evidence should be allowed. However, police obtaining evidence illegally is a gross abuse of state power. The individuals involved should be tried for felonies, and jailed and barred from state service if convicted.
Don’t panic. There’s much more “guided” polling done on Great Debates all the time. That is probably where this thread should have been moved. I guess they are waiting for Curtis Lemay to stop his onslaught of polls first before they allow polls there LOL.
If a cop is willing to break the rules to make an illegal search, do we trust him not to break the rules to plant evidence on someone he “knows” is guilty?
I am not familiar with the exclusionary rule, but the way it was expressed in the OP would leave out cases of “evident crime.” So, if two people are trying to throttle each other in the street, the cops can’t do anything until they’ve obtained a warrant? That’s completely absurd, so I imagine that the exclusionary rule wouldn’t consider the evidence inappropriate in that case.
To the lawyers: would it be about “excluding evidence that has been obtained through inappropriate means”? (the exact definition of inappropriate varies by country)
Doesn’t every other Law & Order episode have this theme? I think this is one thing the American legal system does right. Without this law, the police/lawyers could just do whatever the hell they want in order to win. Even if someone is guilty, they should still have rights. Like lets say I kill my ex-girlfriend and bury her in my back yard. What’s to stop the police from coming over and digging up my yard just because they have a hunch? What’s to stop them from digging up the yard of everyone else who has ever known her? If evidence found without a warrant not only can’t get included in the case, but will actually DETER the chances of finding legal evidence, then there’s no motivation to try, and I get left alone.
Other: It is the duty of the courts to protect us from the government.
Other. A (not THE) duty of the Court is to protect the Defendant from the power of the State. I don’t like that we need the exclusionary rules, but I do think that it is necessary to ensure that Justice is served. The rule is part of the concept of 100 guilty go free rather than imprison one innocent.
I chose Other. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to enforce anything. It’s to protect the rights of the person charged with a crime.
No courts as said should determine the hard solid facts whether it was obtained by formality or not.
Huh?
The whole point is to stop police abuse of power. Illegal search and seizure is a violation of your Constitutional rights. Why would you willingly give that up?
For a (fairly) modern look at why it is there simply look at the main case that informs the rule today. Mapp v. Ohio.
Seems to me your opinion is she should have gone to jail…nevermind what the police did.