Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The exclusionary rule is not a "constitutional right." The right is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule is one way of preserving this right. As a matter of policy, you may be right that, e.g., a system of financial penalties and/or incentives might, on the whole, provide a better mix of results. My point, however, is that if courts leave the question up to the legislature(s) by deferring to whatever system it/they adopt, you may find that legislatures don't wish to spend money to preserve those constitutional rights, and the rights are then effectively extinguished by legislative inaction. A constitutional right that depends on legislative action to be realized is not much of a constitutional right. Analogously, one could suggest that there is no right to compensation for takings except as a legislature sees fit to provide. Conservatives probably find it easier to imagine that the abstract promise of legislative action is not comforting when you put it in that context.
|
For the record, I'm in favor of the exclusionary rule. Anyone that is not has way to much faith in people, and frankly, I can't believe that any CA Republican would have that faith.
