The exclusionary rule was fashioned to deter police misconduct. ...

[mia]

The exclusionary rule was fashioned to deter police misconduct. The Supreme Court has refused to apply it to cases where the misconduct was not by the police. Should the exclusionary rule be extended to other public officers besides the police? Why or why not? If so, to what other public officers should the rule apply?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Give three arguments in favor of the exclusionary rule as it currently stands, and three arguments against it. Then explain your position on the issue, supporting it with logical examples.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[mariahkathleeen]

Answer to Question 1

The exclusionary rule should not be extended to other public officers besides the
police. Police are the ones with the great discretion in how they do their jobs. The
exclusionary rule helps guide their use of discretion. Other public officers do not
have the same discretion so this guidance is not as needed.

Answer to Question 2

Three arguments in favor of the exclusionary rule are (1) it deters violations of
constitutional rights by police and prosecutors (2) it results in the freeing of the guilty
in only a relatively small proportion of cases and (3) it has led to more
professionalism among the police and increased attention to training programs.
Three arguments against the exclusionary rule are (1) it is wrong to make society
pay for an officer's mistake (2) it excludes the most credible, probative kinds of
evidence and (3) it discourages internal disciplinary efforts by law enforcement
agencies. I believe the exclusionary rule should continue because there is strong
support that it deters police misconduct and has increased the professionalism of the
police.

[mia]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

[LVPMS]

Gracias!