Exclusionary Rule is also grounded in Fourth Amendment and it is projected to guard people from prohibited searches and seizures. This Rule is also intended give a deterrent and remedy, which is short of criminal prosecution in reply to prosecutors and police who unlawfully collect substantiation in infringement of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights bound to self-incrimination. This rule also assures the right to counsel (Carrie). The exclusionary rule has 3 elements: unlawful act did by an officer or a person who acts as an agent or police, secured evidence, and informal link between the criminal action and the substantiation secured. There are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
Generally, the Actus Reus must be voluntary and deliberate and if involuntary, he is not at fault. For example, actions carried by reflex or through a spasm are involuntary and therefore the defendant is not at fault. On the other hand, failing to act when there is a duty to do so can lead to fault. The Prosecution must prove that there is a link between the defendant’s act and the end result in order to prove that he is a fault. Factual Causation and the De minimus Rule uses the ‘But For test’.
Exclusionary Rule Search and seizures are protected under the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Officer that go beyond the law and obtain evidence without a warrant are in breach of a person’s fourth amendment right. The evidence that is obtained is not admissible in court and fall under the exclusionary rule. This paper will discuss the benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement.
In other crime types once the intent is created it is followed by the execution of the act. The intent and act is not misinterpreted. In contrast, due to the element of disguise in white-collar crime the intent is blurred and frequently can only be obtained by interpretation. (Stephen Rosoff, 2010) White-collar criminals can only be successful if the victim is ignorant and negligent. Key differences between white-collar crime and other types of crime is that white-collar crime generally requires the victim to comply in being victimized in contrast to murder, robbery, assault or rape.
It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands on another person. It is sufficient to show that at any time or place the person in any manner deprived another person of his/her liberty without sufficient legal authority. False arrest is sometimes used interchangeably with false imprisonment. False arrest is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another consisting of detention without sufficient legal authority. In order to establish a false arrest claim, the person detained must prove that the arrest is unlawful and such unlawful arrest resulted in injury.
As mentioned earlier, the Right of Self-Representation is this right to represent oneself as Pro Sea. Presently, courts at all levels of the Criminal Justice system require that the defendant be aware and understand the disadvantages of representing one’s self as most people not practicing law, will not be aware of certain defenses that can facilitate their case. A person going Pro Sea will have to sign a waiver or
Such acts are not vulnerable to guilt as one was forced to repel an attack. As a means of defending oneself, Gardner and Anderson (2011) note, the accused must prove pending danger, which he/she was unable to resist. Additionally, the accused must prove the ability to look for alternative ways of avoiding the act, unsuccessfully. Gardner and Anderson (2011) argue self-defense is relevant in defending oneself, another person and in the defense of property. For instance, if rapists stormed into a house and tried to rape the wife of an individual, the man could defend the wife by shooting them.
However a weakness of the upbringing approach is that it can be considered a reductionist because it ignores biological causes of crime. This can be seen in Sutherland’s theories as he presents one theory, ‘criminal behaviour is learnt’, and Sutherland believes that criminals’ behaviour isn’t inherited or as a result of any other biological condition, ‘without prior influence people are incapable of inventing behaviour’. This theory provides a good explanation for certain types of violent crime, but it cannot be applied to crimes
Mencken states that this is another point that is uncertain and can be argued. Those who are for capital punishment assume that the only reason capital punishment is wanted is to deter crime. This is in fact, not true. It is obviously one of the aims of punishment but not the only one. “They believe that we simply hang or electrocute A in order to alarm B so he will not kill C” (Mencken 145).
Hence when the purpose is not met then there is definitely a need for corrective measures. And this cannot be met if laws were meant to be rigid or fixed. The basic ultimatum of a law is to ensure that under all circumstances it serves its basic purpose. when a law does not seek to know the circumstance or the situation under which it has been over ruled, it cannot determine if a certain case has been found guilty. The reason being human activities are very much dependant on what he or she was subjected to at that instance.