The Exclusionary Rule in the United States

While I'm slightly surprised to be debating someone who personally agrees with the rule, it is always fun to try on new viewpoints for the sake of debate. My opponent believes that, for the sake of this debate, we should assume that police offending constitutional rights will ALWAYS be caught and punished. Unfortunatly, I must reject this rule on the basis that it is not realistic to assume that all instances of police misconduct will be punished. Justice does not prevail everywhere else, why should it here? -------------------- Contention 1: Disincentive for misconduct In response to my first contention, my opponent stated that conventional punishments for misconduct would act as a sufficient detterent to prevent it. This is not true--allowing illegal evidence still provides a certain degree of incentive for police to violate a defendant's rights. As stated above, it is unrealistic to assume that violators of a defendent's rights will be caught in each and every situation. However, even in a situtation where violators are punished frequently, police officers may still choose to act illegally. Police officers see themselves are the arbiters of justice. They may be willing to risk sacrificing themselves for what they see as the cause of justice. The movie "Training Day" with Denzel Washington is a good example of how this can happen (I know it sounds silly to cite a movie, but bear with me here) (1). Movies aside, a more serious example comes down from the California Supreme Court. In "People v. Cahan", the California Supreme Court instated the exclusionary rule because "'other remedies have completely failed' to stop lawless police action. " (2). This was an explicit overruling of an earlier decision, which stated that California did not require the rule. The bottom line is, the exclusionary rule is by far the safest way of keeping the police honest. We lawfully punish people for crimes like murder and bank robbery, yet those crimes continue to happen. If we can't expect lawful punishment to bring an end to conventional crime, why should we expect it to eliminate police misconduct? -------------------- Contention 2: Respect for constituional rights My opponent's refutation to this contention is that the inclusionary rule does not violate the constitution because misconduct by officers remains punished. This is not so. The fourth amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " Suppose that the police break into my house (without a warrant), search through my stuff, and plant a bug in my house. All of this is in violation of the constituion. The police later use this bug to incriminate me with something I said in the privacy of my home--where the police should not be without a warrant. This evidence is used at my trial, and I am sent to prison. According to my opponent, my constitutional rights have not been violated, as long as the police officer is punished for misconduct. Let's think about that for a second: The constitution says that people are "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures". The founder's included this to protect my individual rights. My opponent, however, believes that it is okay for the police to blatantly ignore my rights, as long as they are punished afterwards--even though punishing them ex post facto doesn't help my rights at all. Essentially, the constitution has lied to me. A lack of respect for the security of my person and house has sent me to jail. This cannot be fixed by punishing any number of police officers. Punishing police officers after people have already had their rights violated does NOT make the 'inclusionary' rule constitutionally acceptable. The punishing of a police officer does nothing for the individual whose rights have already been violated. It's great it you punish the cop that lied to me--but it doesn't fix my violated rights. The fact of the matter is that the exclusionary rule is the only way to fully respect an individuals rights. Punishing a police officer after the fact does not fix a consitutional rights violation. My opponent cites the fact that "our society got along just fine without the exclusionary rule for over a hundred years". This doesn't justfity the violation of a defendent's rights. Just because we got along fine with segreation for a hundred years doesn't mean that it's okay to racially segregate. Finally, my opponent comes up with a very utilitarian argument--that the exclusionary rule is compromising our collective safety and making it harder to punish criminals. This may be true, but it does not make the rule any less necessary or prevalent. The rule is a necessary measure to protect an individuals consitutional rights. A constitutional right may not be compromised in any situation. The constitution is, after all, the "supreme law of the land". Sometimes, the need to protect individual liberties trumps the need for safety. Ben Franklin puts it succinctly when he said: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " The fact is, a right is a right. A right is unique in that it cannot be violated under any circumstances, not for democracy, nor for safety, not for money or power or wealth. When Thomas Jefferson famously penned those words, that we have "unalienable" rights, he meant "unalienable". The exclusionary rule is undoubedtly the most effective way to protect these rights, guaranteed by the constitution. In the words of Supreme Court in "Weeks v. United States" (3): "If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. " -------------------- Conclusion: -The only way that we can really be sure to keep the police honest is with the exclusionary rule. -Any method other than the exclusionary rule allows for a situation in which a citizen can be lied to by their Constitution. -Collectivist arguments for safety do not trump the need to protect those rights which are "unalienable". Thank you and thanks to my opponent once again for accepting. Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.time.com... (3) . http://www.law.cornell.edu...