You presume the jury knows about such acts at trial - should the police successfully cover their tracks, the jury cannot account for facts they are not aware of. What do we do after the fact, if such acts only come to light during an appeal?
And even if they know, I'm not at all sure it would make a difference - "It's a mere technicality," the prosecutor will say. "Don't release this obviously guilty person because the police tried just a little too hard." Given how readily you accept this reasoning, I really would prefer not to have juries make this decision at all. Some things are rightly beyond the reach of juries.
Surely it is in the interest of society to punish the police officers. Just as it is to ensure the innocent person goes free.
Ah, but in the scenario I posited, we know that the person is innocent, because I stipulated such. Need I point out that, in reality, we have no such omniscient abilities? Did that person confess because they were under duress? Or did they confess because they were under duress and they were, in fact, guilty? Who knows? How on earth can we possibly know? Do we take the chance and let that person go?
Without procuring a warrant, a police officer searches a house and finds a dismembered body in a trunk. An investigation ensues and all evidence points to the house's resident as the murderer.
Do we throw out the evidence and let the murderer walk? (Assume that all evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree".)
If we do, who suffers the consequences? The cop? No. Society? Yes. The murderer's next victim? Certainly.
You illustrate very well why arguments-from-the-consequences are not permitted in front of juries. "Release this man, and others will surely die," the prosecutor says. Cute, but it does not change the simple fact that we cannot punish people for things that they have not done yet. What someone might do in the future has no bearing whatsoever upon the truth of allegations about what they have done in the past. Either the accusations are true in and of themselves, or they are not, and what happens tomorrow cannot and will not change the truth of what happened yesterday.
If such truth cannot be established by the state to the satisfaction of its members, then that person must be freed, regardless of the alleged consequences. "People will die for your freedom," goes the chant. "Big deal," says I. "People die in the name of freedom every hour of every day of every week."
The First Amendment guarantees the rights of all citizens to speak their minds. As a result, people with hateful or odious views will be able to spread their vile thoughts to others who will act upon them, and people will die. The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own a gun. As a result, some people who are ill or deranged or criminal will find it easier to obtain a gun and use it for bad acts, and people will die. The Fourth Amendment prevents the police from randomly kicking down doors and searching for criminals. As a result, some criminals will escape detection until after they have committed some bad act, and people will die. The Fifth Amendment prevents the police from simply locking criminals up without a trial. As a result, criminals for whom there is a lack of evidence to convict will go free, and people will die. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to call witnesses on his behalf, and to have the assistance of counsel on his behalf. As a result, some criminals will be able to sway juries or exploit weaknesses in the law in order to free themselves, and people will die.
"People will die" is not an argument at all. That is the price of freedom - imperfect safety. We, as a society have decided that freedom is worth the cost to us, but the fact that it has a cost is not enough to remove those freedoms. If that bothers you, there are other societies that have expressed their preference for safety over freedom - perhaps you would find one of them a better fit for your own personal preferences.
But I am not advocating punishing the man for a murder he has not committed, but for the murder he has already committed. He killed someone and chopped him up. And while we may not discuss the possibility that he will murder again with a jury, it is certainly appropriate to discuss the matter outside of that context.
And while I agree that freedom comes at a price, I do not agree that this is the price that the framers had in mind when they adopted the 4th & 5th Amendments. The exclusionary rule was not adopted until Weeks v. US in 1919 and was not applied to the states until Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. (The court flirted with the idea of a federal exclusionary rule in Boyd v. US in 1889, but quckly backed off.) The modern tendency is for the courts to try to find exceptions to the "rule" they created.
One of the primary purposes of government is to protect the citizens from criminals. But, as you point out, an equally important function of our government is to protect the liberty of the people. A proper balance must be struck. I think it is important to discuss what that balance is.
I have a preference for sticking with the original understanding of the Constitution. I believe holding police officers indivually responsible for their misdeeds is a better protection of the rights of the citizens than the exclusonary rule. This is especially true in light of the myriad exceptions to the rule the court has created. Now the police can violate your rights and in all probability, the evidence will still be admitted.
There will now be a period of silence from the rule of law, while straw men are comtemplated, and hopefully rejected.
-- More likely, we will hear that you have 'misrepresented' his statements.
There will now be a period of silence from the rule of law, while straw men are comtemplated, and hopefully rejected.
-- More likely, we will hear that you have 'misrepresented' his statements.
Whoops, spoke to soon, -- although it could be construed as a sorta combo effort.