Rethinking on the Deterrent Rationale of the Exclusionary Rule in American and its Enlightenment

Abstract

The deterrence rationale is a theoretical pillar for the Supreme Court of the United States to establish and apply the exclusionary rule. Its basic logic is to weaken an official’s incentive to illegally obtain evidence by excluding illegally obtained evidence and then to compel the official and his peers to abide by the law in the future law enforcement activities better. The deterrence rationale used to be an important reason for the Court to exclude illegally obtained evidence. However, with the continuous shrinking of the exclusionary rule, both the Court and theoretical cycles deeply rethink the deterrence rationale, and they deem that it is difficult for the exclusionary rule to deter an official’s unlawful activities in practice. It means that it is very necessary to rethink the tendency of relying heavily upon the exclusionary rule on this issue of coping with procedural illegal activities in China because there are serious defects in the deterrence rationale.