Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
There are some Irisih Republicans that might disagree with you on that.
I tend to dislike the exclusionary rule from a slightly different take than most conservatives, I suspect. Or perhaps not. The problem with the exclusionary rule is that it risks setting free people who are clearly guilty. Rather than do that, judges (and ultimately justices) bend over backwards to find that rights don't actually exist, for example finding that one has no expectation of privacy in a building with closed curtains located behind not one but two fences. That's just dumb, as it's because of the exclusionary rule. If the question had been brought up in the context of a civil rights invasion suit by an innocent party being surveilled by the police, I think the justices (and likely most conservatives), would come out the other way.
So: what's the proposal for an alternative.
|
In England if your rights have been violated you bring an action against the police. That way the perpetrators of the offense (the police) are the ones punished, not the victims of the original crime.
Theoretical opinions of why systems without the exclusionary rule won’t work aren’t relevant because we have practical examples in many countries. Are there consistent and egregious violations against personal rights committed by the police in England because of their lack of the exclusionary rule?
