SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Ma, Y. (2012). The American exclusionary rule: Is there a lesson to learn from others? International Criminal Justice Review, 22, 309–325.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/eQu9xQfmzDhxw3YJG85j/full

Abstract: When the U.S. Supreme Court extended the application of the exclusionary rule in its landmark decision Mapp v. Ohio, it was leading the way in employing the exclusionary remedy as a means to protect people’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The past 50 years have seen significant changes in the criminal justice landscape on the world scene. The exclusionary rule is no longer unique to American jurisprudence. The rule has been adopted by other Western countries as well. The American exclusionary rule, however, remains a unique rule in terms of its deterrence rationale and mandatory nature. No other countries have adopted a mandatory rule or rested the rule on its deterrent effect. This article discusses the operation of the exclusionary rule in four other countries and provides a comparative analysis of the American exclusionary rule. It analyzes the problems associated with the operation of a deterrence-based mandatory rule and explores the possibility of changing the American exclusionary rule from a mandatory to a discretionary rule. The analysis takes note especially two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that signal significant changes in the application of the exclusionary rule in the United States.

Journal Article 2: Sagarin, E., & Macnamara, D. E. J. (1970). The problem of entrapment. Crime & Delinquency, 16, 363–378.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/uRJ5brTCu9nudqG4EwVH/full

Abstract: When, in order to make an arrest, police or other law-enforcement officers, or agents working in their behalf, encourage the commission of a crime, this practice is known as entrapment; it has been frowned upon by American courts and has, in fact, been regarded as sufficient defense provided there is substantial reason to believe the crime would not have been committed had it not been for such encouragement. The courts have argued that the law sullies itself, failing to serve as an example of righteous ness, when it induces someone to commit a crime. Further, the law should not act to increase the temptations for persons with psychological or other predilections toward certain offenses. Finally, entrapment is said to lead to blackmail, extortion, and bribery, and to accusations against completely innocent persons in order to enhance the record of a police officer or to gain leniency for another offender who has aided the entrapment and may be under indictment. The defense of entrapment has been used in cases involving illegal purchases and sales (as narcotics, liquor, and pornography); in prostitution and homosexual cases; and in political cases involving strikes, civil rights, anti-war and black militant actions, and student unrest. In these latter instances, the authors suggest that entrapment (usually by an agent provocateur) constitutes a threat to the democratic process, tending to discredit otherwise legitimate social protest and to stay the hand of social change. The authors suggest guidelines for the use of undercover agents in crime detection in legitimate ways that would not constitute entrapment.