The general idea is that the integrity of the criminal justice system is at least an order of magnitude more important than the outcome of any particular case.
> Isn't it the court's job to establish guilt?
No, that's the prosecutors' job.
The Court's job is ensure that the defendant receives due process.
It's arguably impossible to have a perfect justice system. So, you have to try to construct the best one you can.
While the exclusionary rule does allow guilty people to go free, that negative is arguably overwhelmingly outweighed by keeping innocent people out of prison, providing equal protection to all, and maintaining public faith in the criminal justice system.
One can argue that the system as implemented doesn't do such a good job of providing those three outcomes, but if we assume it does, wouldn't you agree maintaining such a system is more important than ensuring every last (actual) criminal who makes it to trial is convicted?
> The general idea is that the integrity of the criminal justice system is at least an order of magnitude more important than the outcome of any particular case.
If for some reason only one lesson on civics were taught in 12 years of schooling, this would be a top candidate for that lesson.
Not really this is one of those rules that makes people think they can win court cases that they can't really win. The idea that if you catch the police in a small error you can get off in a criminal case. You have to catch the police in a big error that they based the case off, or a serious breach of your rights. This will hardly ever work.
There are others :
1) If I follow the law I won't lose a case. Cute. Try being unreasonable to a judge and see how that works (A popular one : tell the judge that because a car accident happened on your own property, you got to set traffic law governing that accident. Technically correct. Try it)
2) If they don't have proof I can't be convicted. (and sometimes : video is not proof). False (well the video thing is true). The big mistake here is civil versus criminal cases. If it's not the government suing you, or "technically" not the government, e.g. mall security, then proof is not required, and video is perfectly admissible. Even if you are not recognizable on the video, but there's good reason to think it's you (e.g. a credit card record). Second, witness statements from people watching video can be accepted sometimes.
3) If the opposing party makes one tiny mistake I can get off scott-free. False. The justice system's job is to make the smallest possible change to the arrangement that makes it legal. If you sign a contract "I will kill my firstborn and pay $200" (extreme, ridiculous example), obviously you do not have to kill anyone, you will however, be on the hook for the payment. Interesting cases result from the use of "or" instead of "and".
This goes for government integrity too. Suppose Ulbright's lawyers get this one. The next thing that happens is the judge telling the prosecutor to go home, have a good night sleep, start the case from scratch and try again (in the same court case). If he succeeds, that's fine (of course he might not be able to).
4) With a lawyer I can tie up any case for any amount of time. No you can't. Ridiculously complex contract law cases, yeah sure (even then best take a good lawyer). Not paying your car repair bill, no.
5) They can't get to me if I move/hide/other state/other country/... Might be true. Not true for any place worth living. So good luck with that.
These things should be taught, with a few example cases illustrating what can happen. It would lessen the load on the justice system by 50%.
>While the exclusionary rule does allow guilty people to go free, that negative is arguably overwhelmingly outweighed by keeping innocent people out of prison, providing equal protection to all, and maintaining public faith in the criminal justice system.
But should we be letting guilty people go free? It's not like they'll ever come after me.
> The Court's job is ensure that the defendant receives due process.
Thank you for being the first commenter to give an answer to the actual question.
However, I do not think it really holds water. It does not seem to be the case that the prosecutor is the one to actually establish guilt. The guilty verdict is reached by a jury and a judge.
These get to value evidence according to a multitude of reasons, one of which is if it was acquired legally.
> wouldn't you agree maintaining such a system is more important than ensuring every last (actual) criminal who makes it to trial is convicted?
Oh, absolutely. The question is why principle would help? To put it very blunt, "if we let a few criminals loose then the police will stop breaking the law" does simply not make sense to me.
The widespread idea in the comments below that police somehow "profits" when someone is convicted does not make sense to me either.
Blackstone's Formulation, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", is a very influential idea in Western Justice systems. The idea is that the government has a stronger duty to protect innocent people than to punish guilty people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
The general idea is that the integrity of the criminal justice system is at least an order of magnitude more important than the outcome of any particular case.
> Isn't it the court's job to establish guilt?
No, that's the prosecutors' job.
The Court's job is ensure that the defendant receives due process.
It's arguably impossible to have a perfect justice system. So, you have to try to construct the best one you can.
While the exclusionary rule does allow guilty people to go free, that negative is arguably overwhelmingly outweighed by keeping innocent people out of prison, providing equal protection to all, and maintaining public faith in the criminal justice system.
One can argue that the system as implemented doesn't do such a good job of providing those three outcomes, but if we assume it does, wouldn't you agree maintaining such a system is more important than ensuring every last (actual) criminal who makes it to trial is convicted?