Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think this is a key point. Because a court cannot order the sort of regime with financial penalties that might replace the exclusionary rule -- e.g., a rule preventing police departments from agreeing to assume damages assessed against individual officers -- the Exclusionary Rule would seem to be the only thing that a court can do to ensure that criminal defendants' rights are preserved.
|
If the courts had stayed out of it and let the legislature deal with it we would have been much better off. The legislature should decide the penalties not the courts. But we will never be able to fix the problem because the Supreme Court decided that the exclusionary rule was a constitutional right. The British, with their common law right system, were lucky to not have judges divorced from reality.
[Oops -- meant to quote, not edit. I think I've restores Spanky's post to the original. Sorry. -- T.S.]
