|
Absurdity
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.
|
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.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
