the exclusionary rule

[NSNguyen]

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.
5. 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.

[pranavc]

Is B the answer?

[hakyology]

i think the answer is B. what is the answer?

[Sunny22uk]

Why can't A be the answer? Please do explain the answer instead of just posting the possbile answers.

[gmatosaurus]

it cant be A coz A is too general ...it says about the constitutional rights in general which includes many more things than the exclusionary rule
hope its clear.

[rajibgmat]

Why can't A be the answer? Please do explain the answer instead of just posting the possbile answers.

A cannot be the answer because if you read between the following lines, you will find that author is implying/assuming that defendants rights be protected.

"the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even be introduced."

[rajibgmat]

i think the answer is B. what is the answer?

Yes B is the right answer because author has mentioned that there can be few cases where the violation may be technical or minor, but not all or most of the cases.

[pbanavara]

The answer is B :

"Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one ... "

Does not mean that the author assumes that technical/minor violation was the most widely used form of rights violation ..

[rajibgmat]

The answer is B :

"Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one ... "

Does not mean that the author assumes that technical/minor violation was the most widely used form of rights violation ..

NO
If you read the following portion carefully, author means that there may be incidents when the violation may be minor or techinical, but that doesnot means maximum or minimum, just that x number of violations may be of that nature. The safest bet in this case is to avoid making your own assumptions.

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.

[Indradeep]

I agree to the reasons above. But I think C should be the right answer simply because we have no idea about the number of cases affected.

[niraj_a]

i had chosen D, because the passage doesnt state anywhere anything about what constitutes serious offenses and how many cases were deemed so.

i guess B is a BETTER choice for the reasons you all have mentioned. damn 1000 CR.

[gmataug08]

A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
This is the assumption which the author supprts in the line "Although its purpose is laudable,......" (the purpose here is protection of defendants)

(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
this is not assumed (or the author doesn't care to assume this specific detail on how many were technical or how many were other)

(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
This is the basic assumption/fact considered by the author as significant enough to point it out (by writing about it).

(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
this is assumed by the author as the significance of the exclusionary rule.
specified in the line "guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again. "

(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights
This is not an assumption but a wish by the author

between B & E , I go with B as its presence /absence doesn't make any impact. Even without the point assumed in B, the passage is as complete as now.

ans B.

[peter.p.81]

I believe the answer should be B

[Krabhay]

a. The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
Evident from line "which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts."
b. Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
Author has not mentioned anything related to this.
c. The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
Evident from line "Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one". If this had affected even the minor cases,that means it must had affected lot of cases.
d. Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
Evident from last line "defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again."
e. Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.
Evident from line "Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one....". This means author is assuming that the new rule is fine with serious offenses, but implementing it for minor offenses is just too much to accept.
Hence, b is the answer.