The Exclusionary Rule in the United States

His conduct and arguments in this debate have been excellent, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. I also appreciate my opponent's lettering of specific points, as it does a great deal to simplify things. Even with my opponent's modification of the 'always caught' rule from before, the exclusionary rule is still a good deal more necessary than the 'inclusionary rule'. -------------------- Contention 1: Disincentive for Misconduct A. Individuals might be safer without the rule, but their constitutional rights are not fully protected under the rule. As stated before, those rights explicitly garaunteed in the constitution are unalienable, unless otherwise specified. The notion that we can sacrifice those rights found in "the supreme law of the land" (the constitution) for a policeman's personal subjective idea of justice is unacceptable. We cannot rest people's liberties with subjective ideas that could potentially subvert the constitution. B. While the rule may occasionally lead the arrest of a well-intentioned officer, many officers are now protected under the 'good faith' exception created in "United States v. Leon" (1). This allows police officers to use illegal evidence if the evidence is only illegal because of a technical error with the warrant. This exception helps prevent excess punishment of police officers, but it still forces police officers to believe the warrant is real if they wish to use the evidence at trial. In the "Herring" case, the police did not know they were breaching the amendment, so the good faith exception protects them. That said, if a police officer fakes a warrant 'with good intentions', he most likely deserves prosecution. C. It is true that no one is perfect, but the alternative to the exclusionary rule (the inclusionary rule, as we've called it) faces the same problem--we can't always know if the police officer comitted misconduct. The exclusionary rule remains superior. D. Ever since the Court's "Mapp" decision, which applied the exclusionary rule to the states, there are been a dramatic increase in search warrants (2). Given the scarcity of warrants prior to "Mapp", it is clear that the police were not fully complying with a defendant's rights with other methods. My final sentence in the last round was simply an example to try and show that conventional punishment is not an absolute detterent. -------------------- Contention 2: Respect for Constitutional Rights A. It is true that some a person's rights are revoked when they are found guilty of a crime. However, rights are not revoked UNTIL A DEFENDENT HAS BEEN INDICTED OR CONVICTED of a crime by a grand jury/jury. In the United States, a person is "innocent until proven guilty" (3). The fifth amendment to the constitution states that "No person shall be. .. .. .. deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (4). It is clear from these principles that a person is not considered a criminal and therefore deprived of rights and liberty until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fourth amendment is part of fundamental due process, no person should be deprived of rights if their due process has been ignored. B. My opponent, I believe, has seriously misinterpreted the fourth amendment here. It is widely agreed upon that any search intentionally conducted without a warrant is not constitutional (5). The search may be reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that it requires a warrant. Moreover, my opponent takes a quote out of context. My opponent states that "The core purpose of the fourth amendment is to ensure. .. .. . 'are not the random of arbitray acts of government agents'". However, the source he cites states "an essential purpose", not 'the core purpose'. The protection of an individual's rights and privacy is still a large component of hte fourth amendment. The exclusionary rule is needed to maintain these rights. C. Because the rule is enforced by humans, it isn't perfect, but nothing else can be perfect either. We aren't going to toss the rule out because of a few slip-ups. The exclusionary rule remains preferable to other methods. D. It didn't literally mean that "we got along fine". I was making the point that just becaues we did something before doesn't mean that it's okay to do it now. E. While it is true that we must maintain a certain degree of safety, it is also imperative that we uphold those rights which have been explicitly gauranteed by the constitution, which is the highest law in the United States. We cease to be a free society when we openly sacrifice checks on government power for collective safety. Moreover, the rule is not necessarily making us that more unsafe. There have been no violent spikes in crime that can be directly attributed the the exclusionary rule. The rule has not resulted in massive increases of murder or burglary. F. While it is necessary that a compromise be made, we must recognize that the compromise needs to respect the rule of law. The fourth amendment makes a very clear guarantee to the citizens of the U. S. To allow that to be ignored is to lie to citizens. -------------------- I think that I have made it clear why the exclusionary rule is such an essential part of the United States judicial system. It is invariably the best way to respect the rights of the individual. I thank my opponent for an excellent debate, and I urge a PRO vote. Thank you Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://law.jrank.org... (search the term "warrants" to find the fact) (3) . http://www.nolo.com... (4) . http://www.usconstitution.net... (5) . http://en.wikipedia.org...