What’s more, the impeachment exception is also available to limit the exclusion. Evidence that is to be originally excluded under exclusionary rule is admissible when used solely to impeach the defendant’s testimony at criminal trial. This limitation is based on such consideration: the risks of permitting the defendant to perjure may overweight the risk of offending his rights. The last one to analyze is the harmless error, meaning if a conviction would result anyway using legal manner, the evidence illegally obtained will not be excluded. Under such circumstances, however, the police officer should prove that they are acted in good faith. This is another way to admit more evidence in trials, so as to punish the crimes and protect the social order better. II.The Evaluation of the Exclusionary Rule in Practice The occurrence of the exclusionary rule is to prevent unreasonable and unauthorized search and seizure and it develops over years, which is embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence and case law. More and more rules are set to limit the immoderate expansion of the exclusion. Debates arise and many scholar suspect whether the rule is actually working in preventing illegal search and other kinds of activities, or just the waste of judicial resources. Dallin H. Osks carried out a research during 1969 and 1970, focusing on the effect of the exclusionary rule on criminal trials, using the measure of empirical analysis, arriving at the conclusion that the rule can be abolished and replacing it with tort remedy over the police officer so as to reserve more evidence in trial.Some scholar employed the empirical analysis and argued that the cost of executing this rule have been over-exaggerated. Despite the discussion of the scholar over the years, the Supreme Court held that when the police officers are executing their tasks with a search warrant, there is no need to knock and announce their presence in Hudson v. Michigan, thus making the deterrence of evidence of no use. Though this can only be carried out when emergencies occur, it did limit the use of exclusionary rule a step further. The influence of this case may be further tested in the future, but it showed the court’s inclination in denying the exclusionary rule in normal conditions and the trend that the exclusionary rule will not be used in any circumstances. We have to admit that the this rule would protect us from the intrusion of public powers and be mindful of the costs brought by the deterrence of evidence in the meantime. At least, the original goal of the exclusionary rule is to retrain the abuse of powers and protect the rights to due process. It is undeniable that the finding of truth is of great importance, but the realization of procedural justice may really account for the development of society. 网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。， ，英语毕业论文，英语论文范文 |
