• 26 DEC 20
    • 0

    writing need help please

    can you please recheck  these make and corrections,

    Constitutional Issues and Criminal Investigations

    There are several constitutional issues that impact criminal investigations. Two of these are the exclusionary rule and Miranda warnings. Analyze one of these two statements and address the corresponding questions.

    • The exclusionary rule is necessary to ensure that people’s rights are protected against unreasonable search and seizure and to make sure that criminal investigations are ethical.
      • Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or why not? What is the exclusionary rule and how is it used? How does it help or hinder criminal investigations?

    “Good Faith a reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill-intent and without intention to defraud” (The Exclusionary Rule Main Page, 2007, p.1).If Law Enforcement violates a persons Fourth Amendment Rights if they make a mistake, then whatever evidence they had against you might be admissible. If Law Enforcement finds evidence while conducting a illegal search then that evidence is probably inadmissible in a court of law.

    Introduced in Congress by James Madison in 1789, the Fourth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States, and also a part of the Bill of Rights states:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized” (The Exclusionary Rule Main Page, 2007).

    Our Constitution of the United States balances interest, safety, and interest in a persons privacy by consenting to government invasion, but it needs to be done in a reasonable manner, Probable cause sometimes implies a showing of evidence and also possession of a valid warrant.

    I agree with the statement that it is necessary to ensure that there must be protection of people’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure together with ensuring there is ethical criminal investigation. It is evident that the suspects hold the rights in accordance to The Fourth Amendment (Maclin, 2013). Law Enforcement personnel may at times act beyond their responsibility due to the nature of crime and may include unreasonable evidence during a trial. Mapp v. Ohio is a good example of exclusionary rule. Exclusionary rule is a principle based on federal constitution law that seek to ensure that the law enforcement officers do not present illegally seized evidence and that violates the rights of the defendant. It rules against unreasonable searches, seizures, and rules that such evident cannot be useful prosecution. It is a court rule seeking to rule against illegally acquiring evidence the wish and the rights of the defendant. Despite evidence being relevant, the mode of collecting may rule it out during the trial.

    • Miranda warnings are not necessary because they are not actually required by the Constitution and they do little to protect criminal suspects.   
      • Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or why not?
      • What are the Miranda warnings and what is the case law for using them? How are they used? How does it help or hinder criminal investigations?

    I agree with the statement that Miranda warnings are not necessary by reasoning that they are not necessary and not in the constitution and they do little to protect criminal suspects.

    I do believe that a person has his own rights even after arrest and it is not necessary mean that what he or she says can incriminate him or her (Goldstein and Goldstein, 2010). The prosecutors do not have the capacity to use the oral words said by the suspects to incriminate him or her. There are exceptions offered to the suspects over the Miranda rule. It is not a must read the rules to the suspect since the evidence might not be admissible and does not mean that the law enforcement officer compelled the suspect to offer certain statements.

    References

    Goldstein, A. M., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights.   Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Maclin, T. (2013). The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. Oxford:   Oxford University Press.

    The Exclusionary Rule Main Page – National Paralegal College. (2007). Retrieved from nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc…/ExclusionaryRule.asp


    "Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
    Use the following coupon
    FIRST15

    Order Now
    Leave a reply →

Photostream

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
FIRST15

Order Now

Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Chat with us on WhatsApp