Today, as I watched a video in my Business and Personal Law class on the exclusionary rule, my respect for the American criminal justice system was sucked dry. We watched real examples of the exclusionary rule in effect. The most incredible case was of a serial killer in the eighties (23 people murdered in Chicago). If my memory serves me right (it was only three and a half hours ago I saw it), the police stopped a man for a traffic violation, and saw the suspect with a bag. The police questioned him, and he said there was toilet paper in it. Upon request, he let the police look inside, and they saw rope. They were suspicious and arrested him, and he gave them permission from jail to search his truck. They found bloody knives and footprints and tire tracks which matched those at the crime scene where the latest murder took place. Despite the abundance of evidence, the court dismissed the evidence because the police did not have "probable cause" when they asked to look in the bag, and anything found after that was in violation of the criminal's rights. (After he was let free, he killed a 16-year-old and was finally convicted. I think my teacher said he died in prison from AIDS in 1993. Before he died, he confessed to the 23 murders.)
Is the point of the criminal justice system to seek the truth, or to let criminals go free due to technicalities despite a preponderance of damning evidence? If the police asked to see the bag and saw a decapitated head, how can they pretend that the material doesn't exist? How is that justice? Criminals can take advantage of this loophole to leave a felony unscathed.
The first day we talked about the exclusionary rule in my law class, I immediately thought it was ridiculous. The teacher told us that it's there to protect our civil rights that the Constitution guarantees. She also said that it would force the police to act lawfully and with integrity. I raised my hand, and asked "why not just incur a penalty on the officers that do this, but still acknowledge the evidence?" Immediately, one of the righteous left-winged dunces shouted out "but then the cops would be 'busting in' everyone's houses!" That's what a penalty should be for! A thousand dollar fine, or three months in jail, or whatever. If the penalty isn't enough... then raise it until it is! But don't ignore the truth... treat each act separately; the police misconduct and the criminal's law-breaking can both be dealt with. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
As far as our Constitutional rights are concerned... I would gladly give up my "rights" to feel more secure. Public safety should be given more weight than criminal's "rights." I personally think that the way we worship the Constitution is ridiculous. I have yet to find anyone who agrees with me on that. But that's something I can save for another rant. Or maybe I can use that as a topic for my all-important thesis paper that I have to do for English....