3 ms·
In the US, illegal actions by policemen (alleged or not) result in suppression of that evidence less than 10 percent of the time (in actual courts). Judges jus
by mchannon 12y ago
In the US, illegal actions by policemen (alleged or not) result in suppression of that evidence less than 10 percent of the time (in actual courts). Judges just don't like to suppress evidence, even in the face of what you and I would consider overwhelming reasons.
Police in the US get an extreme amount of benefit-of-the-doubt from the public and especially prosecutors' offices (police keep them in business and both sides value their working relationships), as we've seen in recent newsworthy court cases- this alternate approach you've suggested does not appear to be an improvement except in theory.
- pg_is_a_butt 12y agodoes not appear to be an improvement? could he have laid it only any more clearly? you obviously are either a cop or a prosecutor... GET OFF MY LAWN. you're an idiot.
- PeterisP 12y agoBribery laws also don't mean that every crooked official gets caught, but still they have some positive effect as a deterrent. I'm fairly sure that if a cop had a 'less than 10 percent of the time' risk of permanently ending his career, then they would be much more careful than they are now. Of course, there could be an argument that we as a society don't want our cops to be too careful with rights of criminals, we also have an interest in them taking some risk and getting risky evidence; but that's a bit different direction of values/morals/rights.