Ok, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've just gotta say something, so here I am, on my tiny, internet soap box. Is it just me, or is the idea of excluding illegally obtained evidence the dumbest thing our justice department has thought up since dumping a confession because the suspect claims he didn't know about his right against self-incrimination (interestingly, you do have a right to incriminate yourself just as much as you have a right not to, an idea lost on so many judges). So, let's get this straight. A guy murders a 12-year old child. The cops think they have a good lead, so they go to question the suspect. They see a gun in his apartment that matches the gun in the case, so they grab it. Ballistics comes back and says it is, in fact, the gun that killed the poor victim and has the suspect's fingerprints all over it, and nobody else's. The police get a search warrant and search his house. They find some of the victim's belongings, some of the rope used to tie up the victim, blood evidence from the victim on the suspect's clothes, and a crystal-clear video of the suspect killing the victim. Presented with this overwhelming evidence, the suspect signs a full confession and leads the cops straight to the victim's body. Enter the lawyers. Whoever is appointed this scumbag's lawyer will first gripe about how he is only now there, even though the suspect had, until that point, denied his right to council. Now, let's assume that those asinine claims are thrown out. What about the gun? The perp could claim the gun wasn't actually in plain sight, as the cops claim. Maybe the gun was under a pile of clothes and the cops only saw the muzzle or maybe the outline. A judge might conclude that the gun didn't follow plain sight guidelines, in which case the cops needed a search warrant. So the cops acted innappropriately, so what would a reasonable person do? That's right, punish the cops, but who said our justice system was reasonable? What they do is say that the gun can't be used as evidence because it was obtained illegally. Then enters the 'fruit of the poisoned vine' effect. This means that any evidence uncovered because of the illegally obtained evidence is also excluded. That means the victim's belongings, the blood evidence, the rope, the video, the confession and the victim's body also cannot be used as evidence at trial. The guy is undeniably guilty, but no jury will ever know that because the evidence against him is 'illegal.' This guy will walk away, scot free. He got away with it once, he'll do it again. Even criminals who go to jail are quite likely to commit the same crime again after they get out. Within a year or two, this guy will kill some other mother's child, a death that could easily have been avoided if all the evidence against him wasn't ruled 'inadmissable.' Yes, people have a constitutional right against search and seziure. However, we usually punish the person who violates another person's rights, not society as a whole. Unleashing a dangerous killer on the streets because the cops mess up their evidence gathering techniques is like shooting a member of the audience every time a broadway star misses a note. And this isn't an unrealistic scenario. A child-killer was once incarcerated a was being transported by the cops. When they got him in the back of the cop car, one of the cops appealed to the last remaining humanity in the killer, stating that the parents deserved to bury their daughter, and that the coming snow would make the dumping site nearly impossible to find. He didn't threaten. He didn't accuse. He simply layed down a short sob story about some parents being able to bury their daughter. When they passed the site, the killer had a moment of humanity and showe dthe cops the body. The guy's conviction was later overturned because he didn't have a lawyer present when the cop gave the sob story. He killed again. And this evidenciary exclusion technique isn't some sacred, age-old tradition (wouldn't matter if it would, as the libs always like to pounce on 'primitive' behavior) either. It's been introduced within the past 50 years, right before an explosion in the crime rate in the 60s and 70s. So, am I completely off base? Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid? Tell me if I'm wrong here.