Comparative Criminal Procedure
Show Less

Comparative Criminal Procedure

  • Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series

Edited by Jacqueline E. Ross and Stephen C. Thaman

This Handbook presents innovative research that compares different criminal procedure systems by focusing on the mechanisms by which legal systems seek to avoid error, protect rights, ground their legitimacy, expand lay participation in the criminal process and develop alternatives to criminal trials, such as plea bargaining, as well as alternatives to the criminal process as a whole, such as intelligence operations. The criminal procedures examined in this book include those of the United States, Germany, France, Spain, Russia, India, Latin America, Taiwan and Japan, among others.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details

Chapter 8: A comparative perspective on the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases

Christopher Slobogin

Extract

Judicial exclusion of evidence obtained during an illegal search or seizure is controversial because the evidence is almost always reliable proof of guilt, and thus suppression might well prevent conviction of an obvious criminal. Nonetheless, exclusion of such evidence occurs relatively frequently in the United States, and, over the past several decades, has become more prevalent in a number of other countries as well. At bottom, these various exclusion regimes rely on one of three rationales: deterrence of police misconduct; promotion of systemic integrity; or vindication of fundamental rights.Since the 1970s, the United States Supreme Court has viewed the exclusionary rule primarily as a means of deterring police conduct that unduly infringes privacy, liberty or autonomy interests. But in years past the Court also proffered two other reasons for exclusion: the importance of ensuring the integrity of the legal system (primarily by avoiding judicial complicity with police illegality) and the need to vindicate constitutional guarantees. Some version of one or both of the latter two rationales also appears to be the primary motivation behind the exclusionary rules in other countries. In contrast to the United States, however, in most other countries exclusion is not very common. Those countries that focus on systemic integrity take into account not only the de-legitimizing impact of failing to exclude illegally seized evidence but also the truth-denigrating effect of excluding evidence.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.