Three distinct rationales justify the exclusionary rule in Supreme Court doctrine.
Evidence
Underlying the Supreme Court’s decisions in Weeks and Mapp are three complementary arguments: One is that the exclusionary rule is needed to vindicate the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amend- ments. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1838
Categorization
- DEFINE: Frames the three-part justificatory structure the author then unpacks — useful as an organizing frame for the doctrinal argument.
- XREF: connects to: The exclusionary rule is an American anomaly among the world’s legal systems — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1834; Exclusionary practices must be analytically separable from the ideology behind them — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 801; Modern law’s abstract individual ideal enables its systematic social exclusions — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims…, 404 (+4 more)
Broader Connections
- Legal exclusion of both sides removed contentious issues from practical politics
#corroborates(1.00) - The exclusionary rule is an American anomaly among the world’s legal systems
#complicates(0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1834 - Legitimacy and justification are distinct concepts in constitutional theory.
#qualifies(0.90) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 451 - Exclusionary practices must be analytically separable from the ideology behind them
#responds-to(0.85) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 801 - Modern law’s abstract individual ideal enables its systematic social exclusions
#complicates(0.85) — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 404 - Federalism gives the United States two parallel full court systems, making it uniquely complex
#complicates(0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 454 - Liberal neutrality masks power by presenting exclusion as reason’s product
#complicates(0.80) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 135