The supreme law of the State Essay Example for Free

The supreme law of the State endeavorThe supreme law of the State assures aegis of citizens against unlawful intrusions against their constitutionally guaranteed rights. One such confirmation of this impudence is the establishment of the exclusionary rule. Said rule prohibits the use or introduction of any evidence that has been obtained in entrancement of the rights granted to citizens by no less than the Constitution.Under this rule, regardless of the materiality or relevance of a certain piece of evidence to the pursuit of a crime or an offense, it cannot be admitted by the tourist court if the same was acquired through the use of means which constitute unlawful intrusions against the rights of the accused or the person macrocosm investigated for the commission of an offense. Some would argue that the existence of verbalize rule makes it difficult to prosecute individuals who are disgraced of transgressing the law due to the fact that a quantity of evidence would hav e to be excluded in calculate of irregularities attendant in procuring said evidence.It must be noted however, that regardless of the difficulty in prosecution brought about by the exclusionary rule, said difficulty cannot be considered as enough justification for the abolition of said rule. It is opined that the exclusionary rule should not be abolished as the same does not only recognize and treasure the rights of the citizens, and it also endeavors to strengthen the policy of gathering evidence within the bounds of law.Without the exclusionary rule, prosecution of offenses whitethorn be unproblematic and uncomplicated yet this could also lead to giving the regimen unbridled discretion in bringing together evidence and proof implicating an individual to the commission of an offense. In such a issue, in that location exists a huge possibility that the rights of the person being investigated will be disregarded as the regale of obtaining evidence for purposes of prosecuting a n individual would be open to abuse by the authorities. This would clearly run counter to the protection granted by the Constitution to the rights of the citizens.In upholding the exclusionary rule, individuals are assured that evidence put together may only be used against them if the same was acquired in accordance with law. It is noteworthy that the law provides for the proper subprogram in seizing evidence which is material to a particular case. As illustrated in the 1968 United States case of Terry vs. Ohio (392 U. S. 1, 88 S CT. 1868, 20 L. Ed 2d. 889), absent circumstances which would necessitate obtaining evidence or searching the accused without following the proper procedure laid down by law, the same cannot be considered as reasonable, and hence, any evidence gathered is deemed excluded.It thus appears that the exclusionary rule serves a dual purpose of ensuring respect for the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every citizen and making sure that lawful means are obse rved by authorities in obtaining evidence for the prosecution of a certain crime or offense. It is believed that there exists no grievous reason for abolishing the exclusionary rule. True, said rule may have made evidence gathering a weighed down task for officers, but the rule also proved how the State values the interests and rights of its citizens.