Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
However, my point was simply that I really do think that the exclusionary rule reduces the number of illegal searches and seizures, and thus is beneficial. There may be other ways to get to that result -- but I can't think of others that a Court can establish and enforce.
S_A_M
|
There is no question the exclusionary rule reduces the amount of illegal searches and seizures but the price is too high. It completely undercuts confidence in the legal system. It encourages vigilantism and cynicism.
When the system ignores truth the result is bad. If you really don't want there to be illegal searches and seizures penalize the people that are doing the illegal stuff. And the more you don't like what they are doing the stiffer you make the penatly. If a cop punches you, you can sue and get compensation. If he trespasses in your house you should get the same sort of compensation. Society should determine how heinous the crime is by the penalty dished out.
Just throwing out the evidence is too arbitrary. That solution is not really taylored to specifically punish the crime without any collateral damage.
But a court should never throw out probative evidence.
