Criminal Justice Assignment
Contents
Section Page
1 Exclusionary Rule. Mapp v. Ohio
2 The Right Against Self-Incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona
3 The 6th Amendment.
4 The Test for Determining The Prisons' Conditions 5
1 EXCLUSIONARY RULE. MAPP V. OHIO.
Exclusionary rule is a law that regulates the use of the evidence. It protects the relevance of the evidence that are used for proving someone’s guilt. It appeals to the principle of bolting the evidence due to the way
of their collection and following the legally determined procedures. The sides of the judicial system differently understand this rule: when the police and criminologists think that it restricts the investigation and prevents the successful prosecution, the defendant attorneys appeal to the 4th Amendment as a restricting power element. The court is supposed to consider the form and nature of the evidence for evaluating it on the bases
of defendant attorney’s appeals to the evidence as irrelevant (Tracey Maclin, 2012). On the example of Mapp V. Ohio, it is clear that the 4th Amendment is not always applicable especially for the local but not the
federal powers. Dollree Mapp was suspected in illegal gambling and the police came to her. After asking for a warrant, the officer showed the piece of paper without any introduction of it, later it was not found or
attached to the evidence. The absence of the paper was not explained by the prosecution in the court. Even though the evidence concerning gambling and other law breaks were found in the house of Dollree Mapp, she was not defined as guilty because of the absence of the evidence of the legal search in her house. The U.S. Supreme Court favored Mapp with six votes of nine. The Court excluded the evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment (Legal Information Institute, 1992). Therefore, the courts are supposed to evaluate the relevance of the evidence basing on the procedures and warrant because the collection of the evidence against the personal wish and without any legislative prescriptions is illegal and contradicts to the principles of individual freedoms.
2 THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. MIRANDA V. ARIZONA.
Self-incrimination is an act or statement of a person that may lead to the criminal prosecution of oneself or any other person. In this terms a person witnesses against himself or herself. At the same time, the 5th Amendment protects every individual from witnessing against himself or herself. It is supposed to be used during the investigation and court hearings for preventing any answers to the questions by witness that have an incriminatory character. At the same time, the right against self-incrimination may be appealed to any time during hearings and should be supported by the judge (Rod Vera, 2016). Miranda v. Arizona is the case where the right against self-incrimination has not been appealed during questioning by …
