Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome. This can be done by using critical thinking. Does the end justify the means? “The cost is that the exclusionary rule (cost to society) keeps evidence from the jury and makes it more difficult and more impossible to obtain a conviction (because of the loss of the evidence or the necessity of a retrial)” (Cost Benefit Analysis To The Exclusionary Rule, 2011). When officer conduct a search of a person’s house without following proper procedure the evidence that is obtained may not be admissible in court, the result is criminals go free.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Try the questions below. It is fine if you feel that you are not up to my mark, some do and that’s why they are working for me. I don’t sacked workers unless they do something stupid like stealing from me. I will push the police all the way to ensure that you go to court. So think about it before you try or are tempted to do so.
I believe neuro-imaging could be used as evidence. While many people may use it as an excuse for their actions, it makes sense for why they did these actions. I do not believe it should give them a free pass out of jail (since they still know its wrong and CAN ask for help), but I do think they need counseling and medication over some jail time since that is the only thing that will cure their problem. 5. Do you believe that the judicial system should be based on holding people accountable for their choices (blame) or probability of future crimes committed?
If the fault is not on the police, Slager has to be punished. For now the outcome is unknown, but he will not get away. There more important question here is: “What, if there were not any video, which confirms his fault?” Close to nobody could prove that the shots were fired without any reason. The conclusion of this is: To prevent such shootings from happening more video cameras for police officers are needed. Body-mounted cameras enable the police to police themselves better.
Sitz has to do with the police having the right to have checkpoints to catch people drinking and driving. The court reasoned that checkpoints are designed to eliminate immediate hazards posed by intoxicated drivers. This ruling may not seem substantially important to policing at first glance, but I feel keeping the public safe is a top priority for the police. These checkpoints enable the police to temporarily detain people who are, at that moment, a very serious threat to the public. The checkpoints have probably saved thousands of lives and this would not be possible if the police could only check for intoxication after someone has violated the law.
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
Also the offender is more likely to go back to a life of crime because that’s sometimes all they know how to do so that they can survive in the real world. I also believe depending on the crime the offender commits they should have a more lengthy and strict probation if they aren’t given jail or prison time. Even though the jails and prisons are largely overcrowded and sometimes state funds can’t incarcerate habitual offenders I feel that that they need to be on stricter probation or parole sentence so they understand that what they are doing is wrong. I do not believe that individuals who commit misdemeanors should be subjected to a lengthy prison
Police Powers Stop and question It’s one of the basic powers that police have. They can stop you at any time and ask you what you are doing here and why you are in this area or where you are going to. However you don’t have to answer any of those questions. Stop and search This is one of the most important powers of the police force and those include stopping persons and vehicles if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying for example illegal drugs, a weapon or something that could be used in committing a crime. You can also be searched without ‘reasonable grounds’ if it has been approved by a senior officer and this can happen if you’re suspected of being in a specific location or area and if you’re carrying a weapon or have used one.
This law would minimize the number of accidents that occur, I do believe. If cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle was against the law, I do believe it would only be far if the computers in a cop car should also be illegal. I say this because most of the time cops are focused on the computer and if they weren’t distracted by the computer they would also be able to prevent accidents that occur because of speeding. Another reason to adopt the law of cell phone usage while operating a motor vehicle would be because texting is against the law and we as citizens are required to follow the laws. It is overall dangerous to talk on the phone, and or text while operating a motor