Acceso usuarios
For over a century, U.S. debate surrounding the Exclusionary Rule has centered on questions such as if it inevitably allows criminals to go free, if the victims suffer due to police misconduct, or if the rule’s scope has narrowed over time. The rule’s primary objective has been to deter police misconduct. In Canada, discussions have focused on the necessity of conducting a discretionary analysis to determine the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence, especially since Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms publication in 1982. Mexico’s debate on the issue began in 2008, and its version of the rule aims to guarantee more rights for the accused; however, it remains subject to legal interpretation and hasn’t been able to effectively reduce police misconduct. This article provides a brief comparison of the Exclusionary Rule’s-related regulation in the three neighboring countries. It suggests that Mexico should consider its northern neighbors common law legal history and pursue substantive changes to the National Criminal Procedures Code. These should directly address illegal evidence’s prohibition and any exceptions to the rule that may exist.
