zlacker

If we didn't let people go on technicalities, then there'd be no consequence for the government violating people's rights in investigations.

>>joseph+(OP)
My point is that letting a criminal go isn't a consequence. Suppose a police officer, instead of waiting for a warrant that was going to be issued, barges into a suspect's home without a warrant and finds the evidence to convict the suspect.

The officer has done wrong (entering the home without the warrant) and should face some punishment for that. The threat of punishment deters the officer from acting without a warrant.

On the other hand, releasing the criminal, who is actually guilty, is not a real deterrent. What if the officer doesn't particularly care if the suspect gets arrested or not?

It's the threat of consequences to the particular individual that decide their actions - not the threat of conflicts with the purpose of their organization. Put another way, I bet fewer police officers would commit misconduct if the consequences were "you personally go to jail" as opposed to "a criminal is freed and your organization is supposed to do the opposite of that, don't you feel bad?"

>>ALittl+o2
The police are politically powerful and will simply not tolerate that level of accountability. It's hard enough to fire them when they commit outright murder.

Also, the entire institution of police/prosecutors/courts/judges need a disincentive against misconduct not just individuals. Otherwise they can just use a revolving door of disposable/sacrificial cops to violate rights and get convictions.

Allowing convictions to stand in spite of illegal investigation methods makes rules against those methods completely meaningless for defendants.