skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 150005 Find in a Library
Title: Judicial Integrity: A Call for Its Re-Emergence in the Adjudication of Criminal Cases
Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  Volume:84  Issue:3  Dated:(Fall 1993)  Pages:462-501
Author(s): R M Bloom
Date Published: 1993
Page Count: 40
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article discusses the concept of judicial integrity in the context of selected U.S. Supreme Court decisions and compares them with similar examples from cases decided in Australia and New Zealand.
Abstract: Judicial integrity involves making judicial decisions that will show the court's commitment to lawfulness and justice. Courts should act so as not to appear to condone or be associated with unlawful acts by government agents. In the U.S. Supreme Court cases examined, the author argues that the Court has sacrificed the judicial integrity required to support the exclusionary rule. Support for the exclusionary rule has been supplanted entirely by the deterrence rationale. It has been recharacterized from a proposition that courts should act as a symbol for lawful conduct to a concern that the courts should not become a symbol for guilty people going free as the result of suppression of probative evidence. The concept of judicial integrity was used initially to justify the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary remedy, to sanction the Court's use of supervisory powers, and, to a lesser extent, to justify the application of due process. The majority of the current Supreme Court, however, has retreated from the use of the doctrine of judicial integrity, such that judicial integrity is no longer regarded as a justification for the exclusionary rule. Additionally, the viability of the judicial integrity doctrine has deteriorated as the Court has limited the use of its supervisory powers. Moreover, there is substantially less flexibility inherent in due process, especially for the investigative stage of the criminal process, due to the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights. By contrast, the author uses examples from Australia and New Zealand to show that the doctrine of judicial integrity has re-emerged and gained force in these countries. The article concludes with the argument that the pendulum has swung too far toward neglecting concerns inherent in the principles of judicial integrity and that the doctrine of judicial integrity must be restored in the United States. 229 footnotes
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Australia; Exclusionary rule; Judicial conduct and ethics; New Zealand
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.