The exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings should not be abolished

The exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings should not be abolished

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings should not be abolished 1. The Miranda rule has not impeded the flow of confessions. Confessions are given as readily now as they were before Miranda . 2. If the exclusionary rule and the Miranda rule were abolished, innocent persons would have fewer rights. It is impossible to protect the innocent without also protecting the guilty. 3. If we eliminate Miranda , then police officers could ignore a suspect's request not to be interrogated. Miranda is necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against a person's being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” 4. Miranda sends the right message: courts will not condone unlawful police conduct that produces confessions. This judicial integrity argument holds that a court should nullify and distance itself from a constitutional violation rather than admit the evidence and allow...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/18/2011 for the course CJ 101 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '09 term at Texas State.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online