This study describes and critically analyzes the different positions about the role of procedural sanctioning of illicit evidence in criminal proceedings argued by the American, German, and Chilean legal theories and case law. In the Chilean system, the analysis of unlawful evidence outside the preliminary hearing, the recognition of the good faith exception, the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by individuals, or dealing with exculpatory unlawful evidence, among other issues, will necessarily depend on the concept exclusion of evidence we have. More specifically, who we consider subject to this procedural sanction. The author concludes that unlawful evidence neither seeks to protect the correct ascertainment of the truth, nor has a deterrence effect, nor has an ethical component. It seeks directly to protect the constitutional guarantees violated when obtaining evidence.
|Translated title of the contribution||The function and consequences of the exclusionary rule in the criminal process: a comparative study|
|Number of pages||34|
|State||Published - Dec 2021|