Yale Kamisar uses the term “heater cases”

Question OneYale Kamisar uses the term grass cases in his article In defence reaction of the Exclusionary Rule. Unfamiliar with the term, it was researched and determined to be a phrase used to contact to cases that are so controversial or unpopular that they are the surmount of both(prenominal) media and state-supported attention. (Bogira, 2005) Author Steve Bogira provides one example of a heater case. It is ref luxateed to as the Bridgeport case and involved the trial of three white hands who had brutally beaten a 13-year old black male. It was alleged that the contend for the beating was to convey the message that the black boy would not be tolerated in the white neighbourhood. (Bogira, 2005)Kamisar describes the heater cases impact on the exclusionary discover. According to Kamisar, should a defendant incline conviction because the exclusionary expression prevents the admittance of testify crucial to a conviction. Such a scenario has the potential to disturb public passions with the result that the judge is under pressure to allow the present notwith upriseing the illegal rule employed to seize it and provide rise up a way to admit it. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140)Question TwoKamisar does not refute each of justice Calabresis arguments as to why the exclusionary rule should be abolished. He agrees in principle that many of the alternative remedies are ineffective, such as the remedies in criminal sanctions and civil complaints. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140) Kamisar takes issue with Calabresis suggestions that the exclusionary rule could be efficaciously replaced by the introduction of a points dust following conviction with a view to lightening the sentence imposed and the institution of some penalty with respect to the offending law officer. (Calabresi, 2003, 111-118)Kamisar rejects these suggestions noting that with respect to the imposition of a points system which would effectively reduce the sentence would have no impact on police conduc t. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140) This is so because police care about convictions and the negative side effect should a comical escape conviction. Therefore any alternative to the exclusionary rule that does not impact upon conviction will not act as an incentive for police to conduct orthodox investigations. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140)Moreover, Kamisar argues that Calabresis proposal for a sanctions hearing in respect of police officers who allegedly acting illegitimately in obtaining evidence is fraught by the same difficulties that impact upon civil or criminal remedies. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140) The entire case will either stand or fall upon the credibility of the accused person, which as Kamisar argues is tenuous at best particularly following a conviction. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140)Question ThreeYale Kamisar primarily relies on equilibrate two conflicting policy issues in his article In defense of the Exclusionary Rule. The first policy consideration is the require to allay the gene ral publics fear of crime and the second policy consideration is the need to protect suspects from police abuse of integrally protected rights, particularly the quaternary amendment right to privacy and due process as contained in the ordinal amendment. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140)In determining the value of the exclusionary rule Kamisar considers the impact of its abrogation on both policies. He submits that its abolition would result in defeating constitutional rights since alternatives to the exclusionary rules are ineffective. He goes on to argue that although the exclusionary rule does not entirely protect constitutional rights against police misconduct, it is the only feasible remedy available since police do care about convictions.The likelihood of the exclusionary rule setting a suspect free is more likely to deter police misconduct than not. Since resolve are always mindful of the consequences of allowing a serious criminal to escape conviction, the exclusionary rule will n ot undermine public policies with respect to acquire tough on crime. In other words, the exclusionary rule is the best method for balancing policies against criminal conduct and safeguarding the constitutional rights of an accused person.Question FourYale Kamisars arguments for the memory of the exclusionary rule has substantial merit. If police conduct hinges entirely on the go for to obtain convictions and drives the police officer to offend constitutional rights, it logically follows that if evidence obtained in that manner is excluded police would be less likely to go against upon constitutional rights. Kasimar readily admits that the exclusionary rule is not perfect, but it is the best police regulatory method available.(Kamisar, 2003, 119-140)Arguments that serious criminals escape conviction as a result of the exclusionary rule are not supported by data-based research studies. (Kamisar, 2003, 119-140) More importantly, judges can be trusted to go their discretion proper ly and fairly with respect to the exclusionary rule. Those who argue against the effectiveness of the exclusionary rule fail to take account of the experience and intelligence that judges translucent in criminal trials. It is highly unlikely that a judge will permit either a police officer or a criminal to manipulate his discretion. He is more likely than not err on the side of caution.BibliographyBogira, Steve. (2005) Courtroom 302. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.Calabresi, Guido. (2003) The Exclusionary Rule. Harvard Law Journal and frequent Policy. Vol. 26, 111-118Kamisar, Yale. (2003) In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule. Harvard Law Journal and Public Policy. Vol. 26, 119-140