Ethics and Apprehend Criminals Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Ethics and Apprehend Criminals - Research Paper Example On the first argument, the fruit of the forbidden tree doctrine, also known as the exclusionary rule, states that â€Å"not only is the Government precluded from basing a conviction on illegally obtained evidence, but also is forbidden any use of evidence derived solely from the product of the unlawful search and seizure.† (Bartlett, 1967: 251). A usual example of this is confessions extracted through torture. An accused in custody who was subjected to water treatment or psychological duress in order to extract and admission that he committed the crime, when he is subsequently brought to court to be tried, his confession cannot be used to evidence his guilt. It can, however, be used to prove irregularity in his arrest and custody. These are â€Å"procedural safeguards† (Brandsdorfer, 1987: 1082) designed to ensure that constitutional precepts are followed and that a fair trial will be given to the accused. Indeed, even the right of the accused to be given a Miranda warn ing is of such a high value that failure of the policemen to comply with this renders the arrest irregular. No doubt, if the police officer decides to violate the law and ignore the rules on arrest and custody, the courts will afterwards use it to acquit the accused, even though he or she may be guilty of the crime charged. A very powerful criminal who can hire the best lawyers, for example, will be exculpated from the crime and violance he committed because the police officers were careless in the application of the rules. At the end of the day, this renders law enforcement and the criminal justice system inutile in the apprehension of criminals. â€Å"Outrageous Government Conduct† The jurisprudence surrounding entrapment and outrageous government conduct as valid defenses in a criminal prosecution remains to be much discussed, and the debates on whether and when these defenses may be employed remain to be the subject of much debate and controversy. The need to balance the demands of law and order, on the one hand, and the rights of the accused to due process on the other, is the central dilemma that undergirds the debate. The notion that behavior of state agents that â€Å"shocks the conscience† could constitute a violation of the right to due process of the accused and consequently, could secure the dismissal of the charges against him was first laid down in the case of Rochin v. California [342 us 165 (1952)]. In that particular case, the officers forcibly induced the accused to vomit capsules that they believed to be containing drugs.