Exclusionary Rule
Case Brief Instructions
Case: Mapp v. Ohio
Component of the Criminal Justice System: Law enforcement
Topic: Exclusionary Rule
1. Ethical System Application:
a. Discuss whether the majority opinion reflects the application of a deontological or teleological/consequentialist ethical system and the rationale behind your conclusion.
b. If you had to rule on the case, what ethical system would you use to guide your legal analysis (teleological/consequentialist or deontological) and why? What are the costs and benefits of relying on the chosen ethical system to guide your legal reasoning? The justices’ role is to interpret the law in a way that ensures actions are constitutional. How well do you believe your chosen ethical system allows you to adhere to constitutional requirements? Support your arguments
Exclusionary Rule
For a long time, the issue of ethics and the constitution has been a debate to seek a balance between individuals and institutions. The exclusionary rule deters police misconduct as it ensures that evidence obtained against the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) is a case about Dollree Mapp, who was under suspicion by the Ohio Police to be a bomber. When they raided her house, they failed to produce a warrant but instead forced their way inside her home. They found nothing but pornographic material and arrested her for obscene content (Maclin, 1993). When Mapp appealed in violation of her Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court agreed that the police did not uphold her constitutional rights. The court ruled the evidence inadmissible according to the exclusionary rule. It is not always applicable during arrests but only in a court of law and can be used to invoke a ruling even after the defendant has been sentenced. This case is an example of why there is a need for ethical systems to shape court decisions in a manner that adheres to upholding the constitution.
From an ethical point of view, the majority opinion reflected upon a deontological moral system. Deontology ethics often focus on the approach taken and not the results. Deontologists such as Kant insisted on universalism, whereby normative standards that were fair to everyone was acceptable (Bynard, 2016). In the case of Mapp, the Supreme Court determined the evidence to be inadmissible based on how it was acquired. If they were to accept the evidence, then it would have meant supporting the violation of the Fourth Amendment. Deontology produces normative ethics that are definable and rigid such as the exclusionary rule that should shape how policing is conducted.
The deontological ethical system seems like the most reasonable choice to guide my legal analysis. This is because deontology shapes the foundation of procedures rather than judging outcomes. The case of Mapp v. Ohio should prove that the exclusionary rule is a command of the constitution (Maclin, 2013). It is a benefit to follow the deontological approach because it can shape society as opposed to ethics that consider the results and not the means. The downside of the exclusionary rule is that it limits the law at the same time. Officers are not allowed to follow their instincts unless they have a warrant. This may slow processes down and lengthen the procedure to catch a criminal. However, the fact that deontological ethics are keen on protocols is the same reason why Justices can rely on the system to adhere to constitutional methods.
In conclusion, Mapp v Ohio was a case judged on deontological ethics that focused more on the exclusionary rule to avoid deviating from the constitution. Deontology is an ethical system that can be relied upon by the court system to ensure that universalism is enforced. It is only reasonable to set rigid and definable methods of dealing with the law rather than judging outcomes alone. The exclusionary rule is meant to protect all citizens and uphold their right to privacy. Without underlying processes, court systems would have to rely on face value to make judgments. Ethics ensures that there is balance in the courtroom to arrive at fair decisions.
References
Crocker, L. (1993). Can the Exclusionary Rule be Saved. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 84, 310.
Bynard, M. (2016). A Philosophical Approach to Intelligence. The Contemporary Group. Retrieved from https://thecontemporarygroup.com/2016/05/03/ethics-surveillance-and-the-constitution/
Maclin, T. (2013). The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. Oxford University Press.
