Identify and explain the rationales behind the three justifications for the exclusionary rule. Which justification does the U.S. Supreme Court use today?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

There are three justifications behind the exclusionary rule: the constitutional right
justification, the judicial integrity justification, and the deterrence justification. The
constitutional right justification stems from the ancient legal saying, "There is no right
without a remedy.". Thus when a constitutional right has been violated the
Constitution must afford a remedy or the right becomes meaningless.
The judicial integrity justification maintains that the honor and honesty of the courts
forbid them to participate in unconstitutional conduct. Under this rationale if courts
allow evidence seized in violation of the Constitution to be admitted, they become a
partner in the lawbreaking process, thus lessening their integrity.
The deterrence justification says that throwing out good evidence, because it was
obtained illegally, sends a strong message to law enforcement. The message would not
repair past conduct. Rather it would deter future misconduct by showing law
enforcement what the effect of the misconduct might be.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court uses the third justification - the deterrence justification
- to support the existence of the exclusionary rule.