The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials.
The Exclusionary Rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from police doing illegal searches and collecting evidence. (How the) This means all evidence that was collected is inadmissible. However, this information is important and could help to label a criminal guilty. Criminal convictions have been minimal under this rule and criminals are getting away with more. The Exclusionary Rule only hampers police investigations.
W. Bush said “Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend.” OTHER - The police are, and always haves been, the protectors of our freedoms- we need non corrupt officers to be able to do that - It is such a big issue, that October 22 has been named the National Anti Police Brutality Day - Some policy officers take advantage of the power/authority they have - In many cases citizens have not taken legal action against the corrupted police which is necessary for an overall end to the brutality to be achieved - The law states that we are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent - Cops receive an unfair favorable treatment when it comes to not getting indicted - Police generally believe and act as if they are above the law COUNTERS - Counter argument 1: but the police are our authority and they are just trying to protect us? They are using excessive force when it is unnecessary and this is more harmful than
Comey believes police officers have the right to be forceful when confronting a suspect. He also indicates that videos of police brutality should not be posted or distributed in any way. Not do only this sounds absurd, but it also sounds as though it is not significant if some of the people who are arrested are also brutally treated. If police officer can be abusive and treat their suspect roughly then they would be breaking Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. amend.
Officers are mandatory to read the Miranda Rights to suspects before questioning. Miranda rights gives suspects an opportunity to not answer questions from the police and to be knowledgeable of their constitutional rights. After suspects hear their Miranda right they know that their answers will be used against them for evidence in the court room. The reason the government required the Miranda Rights law because suspects or not everyone has the constitutional rights and it 's up to the police to determine if the suspect is guilty. Miranda Rights isn 't necessary helping out guilty defendant, but it 's a better procedure to detain suspects without violating their constitutional rights.
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
Police brutality is a very serious issue and there are ways to resolve the issue. One might say, "Well cops have nothing to hide so it shouldn 't be a big problem for them to have the cameras right?" But regardless of the person who says that, police are humans too. Body cameras in policing will improve the accountability of each officer because people behave differently when they know they are being watched and police should feel the same way. The first reason why police should wear body cameras is because when police use the camera, the camera will
The Fourth Amendment provides defense against illegal search and seizures. Essentially, one can rest assured that the police will not simply enter his house without any cause or warrant, search until they find something incriminating, and then legally use that discovery to charge the person with a crime. Instead, there are many very specific rules and regulations about how something can be discovered and even damning evidence found incorrectly is thrown out (Katsh, 2013). This is an important constitutional right as it ensures that witch-hunts that aim specifically to find something illegal are never carried out and instead the law enforcement aim is to properly catch someone who is doing something wrong. However, there are problems with this
The constitution gives United States citizens the right to bear arms and should not be infringed upon. If guns are banned then the black market and crime rate will be way worse, drugs are illegal and people can get them as they please, if firearms are banned people will do the same. Mental health is an even bigger issue than the guns themselves, if someone commits a mass murder there is something wrong with that individual and they are not mentally stable. People pull the trigger, the weapons do not fire
The state gives a person a gun and a badge, it instantly gives them a free pass to do as they please and the right to kill whom they deem a threat to public safety. Police officers are the citizens who take the oath to “serve and protect”, but quite ironically they pose a greater threat to society because of the fact that they are everywhere and they just seem to be able to get away with everything they do to a certain extent. Where is that line drawn? Who makes the decision if they crossed the line? Police should not have the mentality that they are immune to the court of law due to the fact mere fact that they are officers of the law.