Rights of victims or the rights of the offenders

On the other hand, over time, the Supreme Court has been diminishing the scope of the exclusionary rule. This normally excludes improperly obtained evidence by permitting more exceptions, thus allowing more “improperly obtained evidence” into court. For example, evidence is now admissible in court if the police officers acted in good faith by first obtaining court approval for their search, even if the warrant they received was deficient or faulty. This has come to be known as the good faith exception.
Based on your understanding from the readings in chapters 6-8, and keeping in mind the due process and crime control models, write a 2- to 3-page paper in which you discuss:

1. Have criminals been given too many rights by the courts?
2. Should courts be more concerned with the rights of victims or the rights of the offenders?On the other hand, over time, the Supreme Court has been diminishing the scope of the exclusionary rule. This normally excludes improperly obtained evidence by permitting more exceptions, thus allowing more “improperly obtained evidence” into court. For example, evidence is now admissible in court if the police officers acted in good faith by first obtaining court approval for their search, even if the warrant they received was deficient or faulty. This has come to be known as the good faith exception.
   Based on your understanding from the readings in chapters 6-8, and keeping in mind the due process and crime control models, write a 2- to 3-page paper in which you discuss:
   1. Have criminals been given too many rights by the courts?
   2. Should courts be more concerned with the rights of victims or the rights of the offenders?
   3. Should illegally seized evidence be excluded from trial, even though it is conclusive proof of a person’s criminal acts?
3. Should illegally seized evidence be excluded from trial, even though it is conclusive proof of a person’s criminal acts?On the other hand, over time, the Supreme Court has been diminishing the scope of the exclusionary rule. This normally excludes improperly obtained evidence by permitting more exceptions, thus allowing more “improperly obtained evidence” into court. For example, evidence is now admissible in court if the police officers acted in good faith by first obtaining court approval for their search, even if the warrant they received was deficient or faulty. This has come to be known as the good faith exception.
   Based on your understanding from the readings in chapters 6-8, and keeping in mind the due process and crime control models, write a 2- to 3-page paper in which you discuss:
   1. Have criminals been given too many rights by the courts?
   2. Should courts be more concerned with the rights of victims or the rights of the offenders?
   3. Should illegally seized evidence be excluded from trial, even though it is conclusive proof of a person’s criminal acts?