Exclusionary rule

[Met Income]

Do you favor or oppose it?

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, that holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

 

[Zavoi]

As long as people are being put on trial for victimless "crimes" such as drug use or nonpayment of taxes, then they should be encouraged to use any means necessary to avoid getting convicted, including the exclusionary rule.

However, while the goal of protecting individuals against arbitrary searches and seizures is an admirable one, the exclusionary rule does injustice for the sake of procedure and is an affront to the very idea of truth. If somebody is guilty of murder or theft, then the fact that the evidence used to prove this was obtained without a warrant does not somehow make this person any less guilty. Of course, if the police search or seize the property of someone who is innocent, then the people responsible for these acts should be punished accordingly; but if evidence is taken that helps establish the defendant's guilt, then it is not necessary to justify the act of gathering evidence beyond demonstrating that the person is actually guilty of a crime.

To make matters worse, the exclusionary rule as it is today rewards guilty criminals with freedom if they are searched unwarranted, but does nothing for innocent people who are victims of such a search. In either case, since the searchers themselves bear no personal liability, they will be influenced only by the comparatively weaker motivation to get as many convictions as possible.

In short, for someone accused of a non-crime, there's nothing ethically wrong with appealing to the exclusionary rule, but the manner in which the police gather evidence does not absolve anyone of any guilt for actual crimes committed.

 

[Kludge]

It ought to be eliminated as quickly as possible while maintaining current laws protecting private property, IMO.

 

[Mini-Me]

I support the exclusionary rule wholeheartedly for three major reasons that I can think of off the top of my head:

• First, illegally obtained evidence is much more likely to be planted or fabricated evidence. Demanding adherence to correct procedures and protocol helps ensure the integrity of the justice system by making it much more difficult for rogue law enforcements agents, detectives, prosecutors, etc. to fabricate evidence for a "win."
• Second, allowing such evidence to be admitted would provide all the wrong incentives to law enforcement agencies, because they would then be encouraged to violate everyone's privacy, all the time. When the government does not respect the privacy rights of its citizens and their right to be secure in their homes, persons, and effects, such an attitude flies completely in the face of any claims about living in a "free country." No freedom-loving individuals want to live in a society where they're constantly watched by Big Brother, or where Big Brother may come in and "check up" on them or break into their homes or other property with impunity...and from the standpoint that every individual has inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, it would be a crime for Big Brother to do so. All real crimes have a victim, and they're crimes because they involve a criminal violating the natural rights of a victim. A "law enforcement" agency that violates people's rights would therefore be a criminal agency in and of itself by any honest definition of crime. If law enforcement agents violate people's natural rights regularly or if they're given carte blanche to do so for some "greater good," then they would ironically be much bigger criminals than the vast majority of the people they're trying to "catch." These practices stem from the mentality that, "Everyone is a suspect for every crime - even ones we don't know about - and you shouldn't mind us snooping if you have nothing to hide." Such an attitude presupposes that law enforcement and the government somehow own you, and that you answer to them as if they were your masters...when really, it's supposed to be the other way around. As human beings, our natural state of being is living in freedom, until of course someone violates our rights and infringes upon that freedom. We have collectively instituted government to protect our freedom (as our servant), but when the government itself becomes the aggressor, we need to take a step back and reevaluate what the government's legitimate role is in the first place. The actions of the police are meant to protect and guarantee our freedom (not just our individual right to life, but to liberty and property as well), and because of that, we should be quite alarmed if their very presence takes away more of our freedom than it protects.
• Lastly, many so-called "crimes" in our society are victimless. In other words, they're not "real" crimes, since they involve no rights violations, and the laws themselves are unjust. For instance, our prisons are full of nonviolent drug offenders. If we were to combine unjust laws (which we should get rid of anyway, but that's a separate issue) with unjust and intrusive methods of collecting evidence, we'd be in a whole new world of insanity and perversion of law and justice.

 

[Kludge]

I support the exclusionary rule wholeheartedly for three major reasons that I can think of off the top of my head:

• First, illegally obtained evidence is much more likely to be planted or fabricated evidence.
• Second, allowing such evidence to be admitted would provide all the wrong incentives to law enforcement agencies, because they would then be encouraged to violate everyone's privacy, all the time. When the government does not respect the privacy rights of its citizens and their right to be secure in their homes, persons, and effects, such an attitude flies completely in the face of any claims about living in a "free country." No freedom-loving individuals want to live in a society where they're constantly watched by Big Brother, or where Big Brother may come in and "check up" on them or break into their homes or other property with impunity...and from the standpoint that every individual has inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, it would be a crime for Big Brother to do so. All real crimes have a victim, and they're crimes because they involve a criminal violating the natural rights of a victim. A "law enforcement" agency that violates people's rights would therefore be a criminal agency in and of itself by any honest definition of crime. If law enforcement agents violate people's natural rights regularly or if they're given carte blanche to do so for some "greater good," then they would ironically be much bigger criminals than the vast majority of the people they're trying to "catch." These practices stem from the mentality that, "Everyone is a suspect for every crime - even ones we don't know about - and you shouldn't mind us snooping if you have nothing to hide." Such an attitude presupposes that law enforcement and the government somehow own you, and that you answer to them as if they were your masters...when really, it's supposed to be the other way around. As human beings, our natural state of being is living in freedom, until of course someone violates our rights and infringes upon that freedom. We have collectively instituted government to protect our freedom (as our servant), but when the government itself becomes the aggressor, we need to take a step back and reevaluate what the government's legitimate role is in the first place. The actions of the police are meant to protect and guarantee our freedom (not just our individual right to life, but to liberty and property as well), and because of that, we should be quite alarmed if their very presence takes away more of our freedom than it protects.
• Lastly, many so-called "crimes" in our society are victimless. In other words, they're not "real" crimes, since they involve no rights violations, and the laws themselves are unjust. For instance, our prisons are full of nonviolent drug offenders. If we were to combine unjust laws (which we should get rid of anyway, but that's a separate issue) with unjust and intrusive methods of collecting evidence, we'd be in a whole new world of insanity and perversion of law and justice.

All of those reasons are based on assumptions. Current property protection laws are sufficient enough to prevent and appropriately punish violations.

 

[Mini-Me]

All of those reasons are based on assumptions. Current property protection laws are sufficient enough to prevent and appropriately punish violations.

Obviously they're not, if we even have to talk about the existence of the exclusionary rule. If all evidence was collected in accordance with respect for property rights, there would never have been a need for anyone to even think of the term "exclusionary rule." Tossing out the exclusionary rule in any society would essentially incentivize the violation of property rights "for the greater good" of a conviction...but this is especially true if it were done in the context of our current society, where law enforcement and government agencies are essentially considered "above the law." Remember, we're not actually living in an imaginary libertarian society where property rights are actually respected (no matter how much we may make believe here, with all our talk about the hypothetical best system, etc.). How often do you see police officers get outright fired for violating property rights, etc.?

 

[Kludge]

Obviously they're not, if we even have to talk about the existence of the exclusionary rule. If all evidence was collected in accordance with respect for property rights, there would never have been a need for anyone to even think of the term "exclusionary rule." Tossing out the exclusionary rule would essentially incentivize the violation of property rights "for the greater good" of a conviction.

The existence of the "exclusionary rule" only declares that it happens in some cases. This is the same fallacy many anti-gun folks use (without base, I might add) -- that if it can prevent crimes in some cases, it should be law in all cases.


Current property laws protect against violations, so there is already disincentive.

 

[Kludge]

How often do you see police officers get outright fired for violating property rights, etc.?

Perhaps we should instead be focusing on that.

 

[Mini-Me]

The existence of the "exclusionary rule" only declares that it happens in some cases. This is the same fallacy many anti-gun folks use (without base, I might add) -- that if it can prevent crimes in some cases, it should be law in all cases.


Current property laws protect against violations, so there is already disincentive.

I just re-edited my post, so you might want to take another look...quite frankly, your assertion that "current property laws protect against violations" is naive, because that's only how our imaginary libertarian society would work, not how the real world actually works today. How many times have you seen police officers get outright fired for violating someone's property rights?

 

[Mini-Me]

Perhaps we should instead be focusing on that.

That would be a start, but until it is addressed handily, the exclusionary rule is an important protection that cannot be removed. In any case, I would still support it, since my reasons are still valid in principle* and nothing like the arguments anti-gun people make against guns (I'm arguing for restrictions on government, not on people - which is the non-trivial difference between restrictions that do not violate anyone's rights and restrictions that do). In case you've forgotten, the NSA may also be illegally spying on you whenever you make any electronic communication. A common mistake too many libertarians make is thinking "it doesn't matter" which order certain government programs and constructs are removed in...but it very much does matter.

*To elaborate a bit more on my first point: If a piece of evidence was collected without adhering to proper procedures, there's no real way to verify whether it was fabricated or not. Its very status as actual evidence is therefore questionable, which means that juries have a responsibility to devalue its weight when deciding whether or not the combined evidence is sufficient for conviction. The exclusionary rule makes this easier, because even though the jury has often seen the forbidden evidence and may be "secretly" weighing it into their decision, they are at least reminded of the possibility that the evidence could be phony, since it cannot be corroborated by lawful police following procedure. In truth, the very fact that the police were skirting procedures in the first place and acting in a shady way makes it all the more likely that they're the type to fabricate evidence. Since "good faith" violations of procedure are considered exceptions to the exclusionary rule, the remaining "bad faith" violations - the really shady ones - are all the more likely to be suspect. Remember that serving on a jury is all about weighing probabilities...to convict, the jury must be unanimously "really damn sure" of guilt (or more formally, they must believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), and because the probability of fabricated evidence must be taken into account (something the exclusionary rule does nothing more than help with, since it can never erase the illegally obtained evidence from the jury's mind), that's another reason why your "anti-gun argument" analogy is inapplicable.

 

[Zavoi]

That would be a start, but until it is addressed handily, the exclusionary rule is an important protection that cannot be removed.... A common mistake too many libertarians make is thinking "it doesn't matter" which order certain government programs and constructs are removed in...but it very much does matter.

I'll agree with you on that. Since so many "crimes" being tried in the court system are victimless non-crimes, and the police are generally not held personally liable for violating someone's rights, then the exclusionary rule at present does more good than harm.

While some types of evidence are by their nature unreliable (such as a tortured confession), you can't make a sweeping generalization and exclude all evidence that was gathered without adherence to the normal procedures. Some such evidence might speak for itself or otherwise help get at the truth, which is the purpose of a trial. For example, if a police officer breaks into a convenience store and steals surveillance camera footage that shows someone committing murder, then it makes no sense to exclude this evidence at that person's trial, since the issue at hand is whether or not that person is guilty of murder, and the legality of the police officer's actions is another matter entirely.

 

[bojo68]

I'll agree with you on that. Since so many "crimes" being tried in the court system are victimless non-crimes, and the police are generally not held personally liable for violating someone's rights, then the exclusionary rule at present does more good than harm.

While some types of evidence are by their nature unreliable (such as a tortured confession), you can't make a sweeping generalization and exclude all evidence that was gathered without adherence to the normal procedures. Some such evidence might speak for itself or otherwise help get at the truth, which is the purpose of a trial. For example, if a police officer breaks into a convenience store and steals surveillance camera footage that shows someone committing murder, then it makes no sense to exclude this evidence at that person's trial, since the issue at hand is whether or not that person is guilty of murder, and the legality of the police officer's actions is another matter entirely.

While I go along with your logic, I still hold that the exclusionary rule should stand as a discouragement to the cops to criminal behavior, or the violations of people's rights, It might be an improvement if cops and their employing body were charged and prosecuted in such instances instead of just loosing a case.