Well, and the cops routinely ignore everything and hunt down and kill "bad guys" in most cop movies. Lethal Weapon, Bad Boys, LA Confidential.

Don't even get me started on the corrupt "Animal Cops" on the Discovery Channel. Those motherfuckers trudge all over due process, all in the name of little puppies, kittens and the occasional emaciated horse.

I can't bear to watch that show. It's too depressing.

The reason why I bring these up is not because these movies reflect reality, it is because they reflect the publics perception of reality. My statement that the exclusionary rule diminshes people confidence in the criminal justice was questioned.
When it comes to peoples opinions about the criminal justice system you are not talking about facts you are talking about people's perceptions.

Most people see our criminal justice system as screwed up, and most of the gripes revlolve around the exclusionary rule. Of course they don't know they are talking about the exclusionary rule, they just refer to it as evidence being excluded because of technicalities.

This disrepsect of the criminal justice caused by the exclusionary rule is pervasive throughout the popular culture and you would have to be blind not to see it.

The Star Chamber (Michael Douglas) was completely focused on the exclusionary rule.

In regards to Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson you have a poor memory. Just off the top of my head, in one dirty harry movie Clint Eastwood threatens the bad guy until he tells Eastwood the location of the girl he kidnapped and was torturing to death. They find the girl where he said she was but she was dead. But the guy gets to walk because none of the evidence surrounding the girl could be introduced as evidence.

The entire of plot of the Dirty Harry movie where the rookie cops (Mr. "Don't give up on us baby" is one of them) are dispensing justice on their own terms revlolves around cleary guilty criminals getting off because of the exclusionary rule.

The list goes on and on.......

Uh, have you seen a movie in, say, the last 15 or 20 years? I realize that Republicans don't like Hollywood these days, but this is sort of ridiculous.

Most lawyers in movies break some rule of professional ethics, up to and including Atticus Finch. And our clients watch those movies and think that's what good lawyering is. That doesn't mean that we, as as a profession, are off the hook from those rules, even if they prevent us from doing the best for our client.

If that's what we're talking about it seems to me the public's perception that we're fucked if attacked by aliens (Independance Day) or even that aliens have hidden ships under our roads (War of the worlds) would be a much bigger problem. What percentage of the budget goes to our outer space defenses?

Putting aside the presumption that Hollywood accurately recognizes the public's perception of anything, I agree. We should start passing laws based on the Everyman's perceptions.

First up will be a trial of Saddam Hussein for his involvment in 9/11. If half the country thinks he was behind it, we must have a trial, no?

Then we can close the museums, which offend the bible belters who think the universe is 5000 years old. Maybe we can compromise and just throw away the dinosaur stuff.

Does that list include any movies made in the past 20 years? I mean, leaving aside the overall stupidity of this discussion, the fact that you are relying on movies that were old when I was in grade school is particularly silly.



eta: Aarhgh!! STP.

But, let me add -- the Dirty Harry movie you are talking about Magnum Force, I believe it was -- involved a bunch of psycho-cops using the Exclusionary Rule and other "soft- on crime" bugaboos to justify their desire to gun criminals down on the street.

You suggesting we rewrite the law to suit that sort of person?

Spanky doesn't watch movies now. Fear of inadverant funding of the liberal Hollywood establishment. You just have to rub it in, eh?

It's not just movies. Did you ever notice how often the prosecution was stymied on Night Court?

No. I was too busy looking at Markie Post's tits.

Never before and not since has a defense attorney helped so many guys get off.

For Spanks
 

You had a colorable argument on the merits. I could even be persuaded to indulge your position on an academic level.




The movie thing, though... Not a good argument. Not a good idea.

Which are presently bouncing off her kneecaps.

For Spanks
 

Rather than change the exclusionary rule, maybe we need to make more realistic movies.

The challenge will be getting people to watch them. It's more interesting to see one guy "get off" than 300 get plea bargained every day, day in and day out.

I submit that Americans -- at least those capable of using the term "exclusionary rule" in a sentence -- are better able to distinguish between fact and fiction, and if given the choice of seeing police departments shut down because of massive damages awards based on a couple of bad cops' conduct, they would choose the current system. But, I could be wrong. And so I think better and more realistic video options would help.

Sidd Finch. Changing the world, one Netflix subscriber at a time.