The exclusionary rule is one of the milestone principles of the Constitutional law in the US. The exclusionary rule evokes debates among specialists as well as the public, but the exclusionary rule is essential for the maintenance of democracy and protection of basic human rights in the US. Therefore, the exclusionary law is good, while arguments of opponents of the exclusionary rule are emotional and inconsistent, taking into consideration the effect of the exclusionary rule on the US judiciary system and procedures. To put it more precisely, the exclusionary law is the guarantee that protects all citizens of the US from the violation of their Constitutional rights and the misuse of power by law enforcement agencies to prosecute people, if the exclusionary rule is not observed.
In actuality, opponents of the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule provides offenders with ample opportunities to avoid punishment. In this regard, opponents of the exclusionary rule often refer to cases of leaders of organized crime groups, who head illegal business or illegal activities but cannot be prosecuted because of the exclusionary rule. For instance, it is possible to refer to the example of Al Capone and other leaders of criminal groups or Mafia, which could not be prosecuted because law enforcement agencies could not arrest them and accuse without violation of the exclusionary rule. However, law enforcement agencies as well as the public knew pretty well that such people as Al Capone were criminals. In such a situation, the ban of the exclusionary rule seems to be logical and natural decision of the problem of prosecution of criminals.
On the other hand, the example of Al Capone proves that it is possible to prosecute a criminal in a legal way, observing the exclusionary rule, although Al Capone was arrested not because of his criminal activities as a leader of his criminal group but because of his cheating related to paying taxes. Nevertheless, this example proves that it is still possible to prosecute the criminal in the legal way.
In addition, it is important to take into consideration effects of the ban of the exclusionary rule. In fact, the ban of the exclusionary rule will open the way to the misuse of power by law enforcement agencies because criminal cases may be grounded on evidences collected in the way which is illegal under the exclusionary rule. In other words, law enforcement agents and prosecution can manipulate with evidences to plead an individual guilty and send him or her to prison. Potentially, it is possible to manipulate with evidence and send practically any person to prison. In such a context, the ban of the exclusionary rule will lead to the violation of basic constitutional and human rights of American and, what is more important, there will be no legal way to protect human rights and liberties.
Furthermore, opponents of the exclusionary rule underestimate substantially its benefits. First of all, the exclusionary rule is the effective mechanism of control over the work of law enforcement agencies, which protects citizens from the misuse of power by law enforcement agents and the violation of human rights and liberties of citizens. What is meant here is the fact that the exclusionary rule makes all the evidences collected by law enforcement agents with the violation of existing legal procedures inadmissible. As a result, law enforcement agents are forced to act accordingly to the existing legal procedures that make the violation of human rights and liberties impossible.
Secondly, the exclusionary rule is the guarantee of the observation of existing Constitutional norms and the protection of citizens from the large scale repressions. At first glance, the possibility of large scale repressions in the US seems to be impossible, but it is obvious that the ban of the exclusionary rule opens ample opportunities for the use of law enforcement agencies to take the political power in the US. To put it in simple words, the exclusionary law is the guarantee of the US democracy. In this respect, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that the exclusionary rule protected the US from law enforcement agencies taking power in the country. In fact, without this rule, law enforcement agencies can easily send to prison practically any person in the country. As a result, law enforcement agencies and their leaders can use such a situation to take the political power and total control over the entire country. This will lead to the transformation of the US into the totalitarian state, where democratic rules and norms cannot work because any opponent of the regime can be sent to prison if the exclusionary rule is not observed.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that the exclusionary rule is essential for the judiciary system and the US society at large. The arguments of opponents of the exclusionary rule are inconsistently, while the ban of the exclusionary rule will make the US citizens defenseless in face of law enforcement agencies which can misuse their power. As a result, the exclusionary rule is the guarantee of the maintenance of the US democracy and protection of human rights and liberties.