Due process advocates place greater emphasis on legal guilt (whether a person is guilty according to the law) than on factual guilt (whether a person actually committed the crime with which she or he is charged)

Question

Crime control advocates take a serious interest in this country in controlling crime and are tolerant of the police doing whatever it takes to keep criminals off the streets. The Supreme Court has taken action to protect citizens' rights by not allowing any illegally obtained evidence to be used in a court trial against the accused. This rule of law, called the "exclusionary rule," has resulted in dangerous criminals being released into the community due to inappropriate actions by the police. Do you feel this is the right way to deal with corrupt or poor police work? Do you have any other suggestions as to how to keep the guilty in jail and at the same time be treated fairly?

Answer 1

Some feel the exclusionary rule harms society and does not deter police from being careless or corrupt. If a detective loses a case due to evidence being excluded (as a result of violations of rules of law), rarely is there any kind of consequence for the guilty officer/s (with some exceptions involving integrity issues). Another approach could be to punish the police instead of society as a whole. By holding the police accountable (sanctions, terminations, remedial trainings), the police might be better deterred and society can be safer if evidence remains admissible in court.