Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 29 Jun 2016, 21:12
GMAT Club Tests

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 366
Schools: Kellogg School of Management
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 3

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2006, 16:27
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

73% (03:03) correct 27% (02:03) wrong based on 79 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 85
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: eclusionary rule [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2006, 17:08
prude_sb wrote:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.


I am thinking C.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 445
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2006, 03:06
no doubt, B it is
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 1403
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2006, 03:23
I think its B too... considered C, but its says "has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts" which means it shud be significant.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5239
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 293 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2006, 03:28
"even when" does not mean "most cases".

My pick is (B)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 403
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2006, 00:08
I think it may be both A and B:
A – Author never mentions anything related to his attitude toward constitutional rights.
B – While it is true that some cases that invoked this rule have involved purely technical violations, the author doesn’t give us any information about the proportion of this cases.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 352
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2006, 06:10
I think it should be C.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 780
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2006, 12:14
Between B and C, I would take B.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 65
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2006, 12:22
My choice is (C)
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 162
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2006, 17:59
I believe it is C.

In my opinion, the author assumes B because if you look at the conclusion, it is stating criminals, because of this rule, get to go free and rape, kill, pillage, etc. As such, it is assumes that most criminals are set free because evidence is being excluded based on "technical reasons." If you negate C, you are weakening the conclusion.

Please someone disagrees, please respond. This is the BEST way to learn. :-D
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 231
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2006, 19:58
C for me
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1131
Location: India
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2006, 20:08
I'll go with B.
It is clearly stated in the passage that there are a few technical cases.
Agree with Matt's explaination.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 93
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: eclusionary rule [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2006, 14:46
prude_sb wrote:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.


I feel like C, too,, Can you give us the OA?? pls~
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 528
Location: US
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2006, 03:59
Answer is B.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2013
Posts: 33
Schools: ISB '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V42
GPA: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 62

Reviews Badge
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2014, 05:14
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?

(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done!!
Joined: 29 Aug 2012
Posts: 628
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q47 V34
Followers: 55

Kudos [?]: 822 [0], given: 209

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2014, 07:26
Expert's post
rishabchoraria wrote:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?

(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal



Merging similar topics. Please read the rules posting any questions.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8104
Followers: 739

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2016, 18:12
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,   [#permalink] 22 Jun 2016, 18:12
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, seekmba 4 14 Mar 2010, 19:56
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, scthakur 3 29 Dec 2008, 03:30
4 Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, marcodonzelli 4 30 Jan 2008, 07:15
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, leeye84 2 16 Mar 2007, 15:12
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, kripalkavi 6 06 Oct 2006, 22:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.