> In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Not when they can simply be rehired elsewhere. In any case, the court doesn't

> In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Not when they can simply be rehired elsewhere. In any case, the court doesn't have this power, nor the power to implement "career-slowing disincentives". Now, if the police unions come in and say, "You know what? We're tired of criminals getting away with crimes, so how about we agree to implement real punishments for rights violations, in exchange for not throwing out evidence when mistakes are made?", then I would be entirely in favor of the courts seriously considering such an arrangement, even though some might argue that it subverts the rule of law. There's an alternative for you.