Because authority is derived from the will of the governed, and so needs to be accountable for their practices. If they fail to follow those procedures, they cannot prosecute. This is meant to insulate the population against rogue law enforcement. You know, kind of how like it is now in USA with the country having a minimal amount of the worlds population, but the highest incarcerated population of the whole world.
Sucks when guilty people go free, you should be angry at law enforcement for sucking at their jobs
I know why it works like that, it just really sucks to see guilty bastards smiling and going free because of a mistake.
If they find real evidence it should be used ! And the huge number of arrests in the US is caused by the "War on drugs", I don't agree with those kind of laws, but guilty should be guilty... If the evidence is real.
How about the evidence gathered by illegal means? The NSA gets some info on you via illegal means that shows you are also breaking the law... they then pass that information on to local law enforcement (another crime), and instruct local law enforcement to call it a "tip" or to perform parallel reconstruction, which fabricates a legal history of how the evidence was gathered. This is the evidence you want used? Illegally obtained evidence from an illegal program?
If the evidence is real, and they did their job, it can be used. If they broke the law to get the evidence, then they've freed a guilty person through their ineptitude. Don't blame the guilty for benefiting from the corrupt legal system. Focus on the system itself, because it is designed this way.
Well if I was breaking a law and they found out then I'm guilty. It's as simple as that.
Fabricating evidence is wrong, that's very clear, but that is a different thing.
If someone did wrong to you and they got away just because they hid the evidence too well, would you be happy about that ?
Not fabricating evidence... recreating a false chain of custody for evidence. I'm saying the evidence can be real, but if it's illegally obtained then a proper trial can't be had because the state broke the law. But you're basically saying who cares, the person is guilty. but the system is guilty too, so you're all for one breaking the law but not the other.
If someone did wrong to me and they got away because the state broke the law and got the case tossed, I would be unhappy with the law-breaking state that promotes obedience to the law, but only for citizens, not cops judges or secret spy agencies.
I'm just saying your rant is misplaced. It should be against the government, not against those who benefit from the govt's inability to conduct itself "lawfully"
I understand that you didn't mean evidence fabricating. I also said that illegal ways of evidence obtaining should be prosecuted, but the evidence should still be used.