Abstract
If we think that the point of a criminal trial is to arrive at the truth regarding the guilt of the accused, then exclusionary rules are curious. Exclusionary rules prevent the triers of fact from having access to all of the relevant information, and thus, one may worry, exclusionary rules make errors in criminal trials more likely. Thus, it is often thought, if we are to justify exclusionary rules, we must do so on moral grounds rather than for epistemic reasons. In this essay, I argue that we can justify exclusionary rules on epistemic grounds, and in fact, sound epistemic practices often require us to exclude relevant information from consideration both inside and outside the courtroom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an excellent summary of the case see Grann (2009).
- 2.
Beyler (2009), p. 51.
- 3.
- 4.
Clark (1961).
- 5.
- 6.
Bentham (1843) Vol 6, chapter 9.
- 7.
See for example, Powell (1981)
- 8.
For an interesting discussion of the differences here see Leiter (1997).
- 9.
Laudan (2006), pp. 17–18.
- 10.
Laudan (2006), p. 18. My emphasis.
- 11.
Laudan (2006), p. 121.
- 12.
See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975).
- 13.
Laudan (2006), p. 175.
- 14.
Laudan (2006), p. 122.
- 15.
Leo and Ofshe (1998), pp. 449–450.
- 16.
Warden and Drizin (2009), pp. 415–427.
- 17.
Leo and Ofshe (1998), p. 450.
- 18.
The Innocence Project (2019).
- 19.
Indeed, the number may be much higher. Social scientists argue that 2–8% of the 2.2 million people in prison have accepted plea bargains despite the fact that they are innocent. Rakoff’s numbers are based on a more modest estimate of 1%. See Rakoff (2014).
- 20.
Kassin (2012), p. 434.
- 21.
Costanzo et al. (2010), p. 238.
- 22.
Harris (2012), pp. 44–45.
- 23.
Frazier v. Cupp, 393 U.S. 732 (1969).
- 24.
Harris (2012), p. 45.
- 25.
Starr (2013).
- 26.
Laudan (2006), p. 229.
- 27.
Laudan (2006), p. 120.
- 28.
This is not entirely correct. Judges are asked to make judgments about both the relevance and the reliability of expert witnesses. This is how it should be. We should work to ensure that judges consider excluding more forensic ‘science’ because of its unreliability. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
- 29.
- 30.
Harris (2012), p. 27.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
Ahlstrom-Vij argues just such a thing, what he calls ameliorative epistemology, (2013), pp. 137–179.
References
Ahlstrom-Vij K (2013) Epistemic paternalism: a defense. Palgrave Macmillan Press, New York
Bentham J (1843) The works of Jeremy Bentham: rationale of evidence, rationale of judicial evidence, vol 6. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1923#Bentham_0872-06_284. Accessed 14 July 2018
Beyler CL (2009) Analysis of the fire investigation methods and procedures used in the criminal arson cases against Ernest Ray Willis and Cameron Todd Willingham. Submitted to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Sam Houston State University, 17 August 2009
Blackmun HA (1975) Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590
Blackmun HA (1993) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579
Clark TC (1961) Mapp v Ohio, 376 U.S. 643
Costanzo M, Shaked-Schroer N, Visnon K (2010) Juror beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions and expert testimony. J Empir Leg Stud 7(2):231–247
Grann D (2009) Trial by fire. New Yorker, 31 Aug 2009
Harris D (2012) Failed evidence: why law enforcement resists science. New York University Press, New York
Ho HL (2016) The criminal trial, the rule of law, and the exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence. Crim Law Philos 10(1):109–131
Ho HL (2019) The fair trial rationale for excluding wrongfully obtained evidence. In: Gless S, Richter T (eds) Do exclusionary rules ensure a fair trial? Springer, Cham, pp 283–305
Innocence Project (2019) Exoneration statistics and databases. https://www.innocenceproject.org/exoneration-statistics-and-databases/. Accessed 1 Oct 2019
Kassin SM (2012) Why confession trump innocence. Am Psychol 67(6):431–445
Laudan L (2006) Truth, error, and criminal law: an essay in legal epistemology. Cambridge, New York
Leiter B (1997) The epistemology of admissibility: why even good philosophy of science would not make for good philosophy of evidence. BYU Law Rev 1997(4):803–820
Leo RA, Ofshe RJ (1998) Consequence of false confessions: deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. J Crim Law Criminol 88(2):429–496
Loftus E (1996) Eyewitness testimony. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Ma Y (1999) Comparative analysis of exclusionary rules in the United States, England, France, Germany, and Italy. Policing: Int J 22(3):280–303
Marshall T (1969) Frazier v. Cupp, 393 U.S. 732
Mnookin JL (2008) Of black boxes, instruments, and experts: testing the validity of forensic science. Episteme 5(3):343–358
Murphy EE (2015) Inside the cell: the dark side of forensic DNA. Bold Type Books, New York
Powell L (1981) Bullington v. Missouri (dissent), 451 U.S. 430
Rakoff JS (2014) Why innocent people plead guilty. The New York Review of Books, 20 Nov, 2014
Starr D (2013) The interview: do police interrogation techniques produce false confessions? The New Yorker, 9 Dec 2013
Warden R, Drizin SA (2009) True stories of false confessions. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harris, J.R. (2021). An Epistemic Defense of Exclusionary Rules in the Criminal Justice System. In: Klappstein, V., Dybowski, M. (eds) Theory of Legal Evidence - Evidence in Legal Theory. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 138. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83841-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83841-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-83840-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-83841-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)