> Whether the perps were murderers, pot smokers or speeders (or innocents...) does not matter.
You might not agree if you were the victim or the victim's friends/family. The evidence might have been illegally gathered, but it was also pretty damming.
I absolutely agree with what the ACLU is doing, but there is still a victim and they will likely never see justice. It's a real failing of the US justice system, and not something I'm personally comfortable in celebrating.
> The evidence might have been illegally gathered, but it was also pretty damming.
I know that this is hard to stomach, especially for the victims. But as a society we've determined that convictions based on illegal evidence are a bigger problem than the crimes they intend to punish. And by and large that is a good thing, even if in individual cases it hurts like hell.
The alternative, a society where police can commit crimes in order to catch criminals is much worse than a society where the police is still kept in check by the law. In a really just society these officers would be charged.
"
The alternative, a society where police can commit crimes in order to catch criminals is much worse than a society where the police is still kept in check by the law. In a really just society these officers would be charged."
I don't disagree, but there are alternatives to the exclusionary rule, like massive civil liability (or even criminal liability for the police) instead of the current qualified immunity regime.
If a group of police officers illegally obtains evidence, and goes bankrupt/gets foreclosed on/etc for doing it, they are unlikely to do this again.
In fact, i'd venture that qualified immunity has done more than anything else to foster this culture of misconduct that the exclusionary rule was meant to prevent. The likelihood of criminal charges against police in these cases was always low.
I believe at this point, time has shown that the exclusionary rule is not really an effective deterrent to police misconduct, whereas at least int he US, real money might be.
(sad, but true).
As a complete aside, "we as a society" did not decide anything. The exclusionary rule was judicially created, and very very recent (late 1900's). Prior to that, illegal evidence was as good as anything else in the US.
I woudl be very upset if someone who hurt my ${loved one} went free because of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. However, I like to believe that I'd be directing my anger at the organization that decided to use bad techniques to get evidence, rather than at the law that protects all of us from such behavior.
I expect a significant number of people would characterize what the police did as bending the rules a little to catch a rapist on the loose. Many -- including me! aren't going to agree with that, but it is a legitimate point of view, and it does explain why police are very rarely sanctioned for actions like this.
Legitimate implies legal, and legal it is not. It's a fine line between bending the rules an breaking the rules and any lawyer worth their salt will get their client off the hook if the police are found to be bending the rules.
If there is one thing more dangerous than criminals then it is authorities operating without any checks on their power.
So if you want criminals to be punished for their deeds you should be very much against police bending the rules to catch them.
You might not agree if you were the victim or the victim's friends/family. The evidence might have been illegally gathered, but it was also pretty damming.
I absolutely agree with what the ACLU is doing, but there is still a victim and they will likely never see justice. It's a real failing of the US justice system, and not something I'm personally comfortable in celebrating.