Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
Boor shows this when he writes, “So you figured it would be better if I just hated myself” (265). The only reason his parents told him the truth is Paul confronted them. While they admitted that he had a right to know, they justified their reason for not telling him earlier. Paul may have understood that his parents’ love led to their over protection but he probably distrusted his parents and their ability to tell him the whole truth. Paul’s parents’ choices changed the direction of his life.
I think it's wrong because random searches will just lead to profiling which isn’t right. Amendment 4 is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches unless there is probable cause but once again doesn't random imply that there is no reason to suspect any thing. I don’t do drugs but I just don’t think its fair especially to the people that don’t do drugs and are subject to searches. Students are going to do what they want. A simple drug test
The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges. Basically one wrong moved can make us lose a suspect of a horrible crime if we are not careful. Law enforcement just need to be cautious so they are doing their jobs correct, and setting a person free will get them into trouble (cjlf.org, 2011). When we are identifying the exclusionary rule it is a great rule to have so police have to stop and think. Police have to think before they search because it could cost them a lot if they just do what they want.
In my own opinion this causes many issues which can lead people to do immoral things and commit bad crimes, and be able to justify their actions by stating it was already determined for them to do it. With this idea you can’t be praised for doing good things or punished for doing bad as we did not choose to preform or commit these actions. Ted Honderich was a hard determinist and said all our choices, intentions and our actions are nothing more than effects from other past events that have already happened. David Hume would criticise this he argues against hard determinism and says we do have free will and moral responsibility, we are responsible for all our moral and non-moral actions regardless of whether they could have been determined by our past choices or values. John Hospers also thought all things were determined.
It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.” (Thoreau, pg. 1) Thoreau believed that we should disobey the law by ourselves if our conscience is telling us that the law is being immoral. He also feels that this disobedience should be done in private with immediate action; there is no need to make a big scene about it. His aim was not to personally
If you ask anyone to describe crime in one word the first word out of anyone’s mouth would probably be “bad”. However, after watching “The Negotiator” people might change their view on the word. What Danny Roman did was in fact a crime, but because of rational choice theory we know there is more to the story than just the choice Danny made to hold hostages. Rational choice theory is a criminological approach that understands that people commit crimes (most of the time) under free will however; circumstances may affect the exercise of personal choice. Rational choice theory was reborn in the 1970s as a response to the failure of rehabilitation.
We believe that both the employee and the employer were unethical in this case because it illustrates a degree of moral intensity. The employee had a due diligence to the employer and should have brought his concerns to higher management instead of blogging it on a low profile under a false name. The employer had a due diligence to the employee and should have expressed their concern to the employee. The employer could of asked the employee if he could have deleted the blog or edit it so that the name of the employer was not mentioned. The degree of harm that could have happened to the company was not justified because when a search was made in an Internet search and the blog was not easily accessible in the public domain and this does not give the employer the just cause for termination of the employee.
Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts. Furthermore, they also talk about the psychological side of the subject for example, if the witness lost his memory then he shouldn't give any statement because his statement might affect either the person on trial or the witness himself. For that reason the lawyer is allowed to ask question to the witness just to be sure that the witness is telling the truth. Furthermore, the journal talks about bias, however the study is not taking any side they are just giving facts and statement about the issue. One of the quotes that stood up in the article was “witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers” The main point of this quote is that the witness is capable of lying or
The fact that the school think they have the right to violate the child's private life is funny. But at the same time its a little disturbing to know that they will invade our lives during our generation. As well as our fourth amendment right it is breaking, it is incriminating yourself if you show up positive. The fact that our founding fathers gave us these rights our expressions of these rights should not be stopped by anything regardless. The school system has no right to drug test anyone, due to what cause.