Menulis Ulang Keadilan: Bagaimana Doktrin Suppression of Evidence dalam Preseden Amerika Serikat Menata Kembali Prosedur Peradilan Pidana
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51903/jaksa.v2i4.2099Abstract
Suppression of evidence is one mechanism to ensure that law enforcement actions that violate constitutional rights will not produce evidence that can be used in court. Unfortunately, this doctrine is valued for its ability to ensure that the law enforcement process is carried out in accordance with applicable legal rules, as well as maintaining a balance between state power and individual freedom. On the other hand, the application of this doctrine can acquit perpetrators of crimes suspected of committing substantial crimes only because of minor procedural errors made by law enforcement. This study uses a data collection method collected using library research, then analyzed using qualitative methods and presented descriptively. The results of the study indicate that the doctrine of suppression of evidence has proven to be an important mechanism in maintaining a balance between individual constitutional rights and the state's need to enforce the law effectively. In the United States, the exclusionary rule and its various exceptions serve as a barrier to abuse of power by the state and law enforcement, especially in the context of unauthorized searches and seizures. Although it raises concerns that the criminal justice system is becoming less effective, this doctrine remains important in protecting individual constitutional rights in the United States.
References
Ansems, L. F. M., Bos, K. V. D., & Mak, E. (2020). Speaking of Justice: A Qualitative Interview Study on Perceived Procedural Justice Among Defendants in Dutch Criminal Cases. Law & Society Review, 54(3): 643-679.
Bilz, K. (2012). Dirty Hands or Deterrence? An Experimental Examination of the Exclusionary Rule. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(1): 149-171.
Calabresi, G. (2003). The Exclusionary Rule. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 26(1): 111-118.
Cammack, M. (2010). The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Exclusionary Rule in the United States. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 58(1): 631-658.
Faqihi, A. M. A. (2022). Evidence Derived from the Invalid Procedures and the Consequences. Journal of King Abdulaziz University Arts and Humanities, 30(1): 275-303.
Gau, J. M. (2015). Procedural Injustice, Lost Legitimacy, and Self-Help. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(2): 132-150.
Kerr, O. S. (2015). Executing Warrants for Digital Evidence: The Case for Use Restrictions on Nonresponsive Data. Texas Tech Law Review, 48(1): 1-36.
Kurniawan, Z., Tisnanta, H. S., Fakih, M., & Ferdiansyaah, A. I. (2022). Exclusionary Rule Principle and Constitutional Rights Protection in Evidence Seeking. International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), 10(4): 864-871.
Levine, K. L., Turner, J. I., & Wright, R. F. (2016). Evidence Laundering in a Post-Herring World. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(4): 627-680.
Liu, S., & Nir E. (2021). Mission Impossible? Challenging Police Credibility in Suppression Motions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 33(6): 584-607.
Ma, Y. (1999). Comparative Analysis of Exclusionary Rules in the United States, England, France, Germany, and Italy. Policing, 22(3): 280-303.
Mappaselleng, N. F., & Kadir, Z. K. (2020). Hukum Acara Pidana Adversarial. Yogyakarta: Arti Bumi Intaran.
Natamiharja, R., Sabatira, F., Banjarani, D. R., Davey, O. M., & Setiawan, I. (2022). Balancing Two Conflicting Perspectives on Wiretapping Act: Rights to Privacy and Law Enforcement. Al Risalah: Forum Kajian Hukum dan Sosial Kemasyarakatan, 22(1): 18-30.
Nie, E. (2019). Empowering the Exclusionary Rule: Using Suppressing Motion Data to Improve Police Searches and Searches in the United States. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 22(1): 96-107.
Ridder, C. K. (2009). Evidentiary Implications of Potential Security Weaknesses in Forensic Software. International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics, 1(3): 80-91.
Shapiro, S. J. (1990). Reviewing the Unreviewable Judge: Federal Prosecution Appeals of Mid-Trial Evidentiary Rulings. The Yale Law Journal, 99(4): 905-924.
Simović, M. N, & Hrustić (2020). The Main Characteristics of Criminal Proceedings in England. Godišnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Banja Luci, 42(1): 9-42.
Skoreiko. V. V. (2023). Inadmissible Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Some Aspect of Applying the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine. Law and Society, 5(1): 296-304.
Summers, S. J. (2023). The Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof, and Rights. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning, 4(1): 249-272.
