Identity 10 fundamental human rights and their limitations

A. in weeks v. united states (1914), the court established the exclusionary rule, which was incorporated to the states in mapp v. ohio (1961), and the court established the concept of a "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule in united states v. leon (1984). in their opinion, the supreme court pointed out that compliance with the exclusionary rule can have a cost to society (criminals can go free) that outweighs the benefits (stopping illegal searches by police). ultimately, the court determined that despite the exclusionary rule, evidence can still be admitted in situations where police made genuine "good faith" efforts to act legally, but technically acted illegally, in obtaining the evidence. explain the exclusionary rule good faith exception and explain and support whether you agree or disagree with the concept of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? why or why not? use the lesson notes and/or one news source to support your answer.

You are a member of the jury for a murder case. the prosecution has presented dna evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene. the defense claims that dna evidence using str analysis with 13 markers is not sufficient to reliably distinguish between people. what do you think? a. the defense is right. str analysis with 13 markers gives a 1 in 1 million chance of two people having the same pattern, leaving a reasonable doubt. b. str analysis is not sufficient. the defendant's entire genome should be sequenced. the prosecution will have to consult a genomic library to make sure their dna evidence is valid. c. the prosecution is right. str analysis with 13 markers gives a 1 in 10 billion or greater chance that two people will have the same pattern. this person was at the crime scene. d. dna evidence is not generally accepted by legal experts.

For each of the following, mark whether it is a possible confounder (a factor that mixes up the results, making it look like candy is to blame when it's a causal (or causation) link which supports the argument that candy causes criminal behavior (ie, explains how candy leads to criminality ), or neither (an irrelevant factor, something that may cause people to become criminals but has nothing to do with eating candy). choose your answers based only< on the information given. additives in candy- additives found in candy may adversely affect brain development of young children in ways that could contribute towards adult aggression. impulsive personality-- kids who are highly impulsive and have trouble delaying gratification are more likely to eat candy every day as children and more likely to disobey laws as adults. violent abuse-- children who suffer violent abuse are more likely to become violent adults and commit violent crimes. gender- boys are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent crimes