The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” This is a common adage used to describe the exclusionary rule. The police did wrong by violating her constitutional rights so a defendant, even though she may be guilty, may end up without punishment. Is this a proper or adequate means of deterring and/or compensating for police officers who deliberately or otherwise violate an individual’s constitutional rights in the pursuit of an arrest or for those who lie on the witness stand? Similarly, plea bargains in criminal cases and settlements in civil cases are compromises. Neither side (the defendant or the victim/public in criminal cases and the plaintiff or defendant in civil cases) receives a full measure of justice. All of this is done to preserve the administration of justice — not the rights of the parties or the interests of the public. Since the majority of all cases — civil and criminal — are resolved in this manner, does this mean that there really is no justice in American courts? Are there better ways of doing things without forcing a collapse of the justice system? Consider the discussions on abolition of the exclusionary rule and abolition of plea bargaining You might also cite examples from news articles, books, television shows or movies of such injustices. You should address these questions in a paper of approximately 2,400 words, relying primarily on the readings and other materials assigned in this module; you will not receive credit without demonstrating that you have read and understood the material assigned. You may include independent sources. All information should be documented in MLA style.