- Published: December 8, 2021
- Updated: December 8, 2021
- University / College: Northumbria University at Newcastle
- Level: Intermediate School
- Language: English
- Downloads: 45
“ The rule endangers innocent victims while letting criminals escape” (“ Friend or Foe”). Due to this principle, illegal weapons which are considered as illegally confiscated by police authorities because it violates the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures are considered as inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the illegal articles will not be included in the criminal proceeding which if actually admitted will surely convict the accused or punish the individual who is in possession of an illegal item. In this sense, the accused is freed from any liability with regard to that illegal item leaving the victim hopeless and frustrated. Moreover, this rule can encourage more law violators believing that they will not be punished by owning that illegal item as long as it is not seized legally. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not helpful per se.
Thus, it can be inferred that the US criminal system is giving more protection to the accused than to the innocent victim which can be deemed as a violation of the equal protection of the laws.
Works Cited
“ Edwin Meese III.” Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation, n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2010.
“ Friend or Foe? Debating the Exclusionary Rule, Part I.” Landmark Cases Supreme Court. Landmark Cases Supreme Court, n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2010.
U. S. Supreme Court. Mapp v. Ohio. FindLaw, n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2010.
