A central point in the plot of an episode of The Equalizer
(which you should check out if you haven’t seen it before) got me
thinking about a problem in our legal system.  In the episode, a man is
trying to take revenge on two men who raped and beat (with a lead pipe)
his pregnant wife, leaving her in a coma.  The point catching my
attention was that these men had all charges dismissed against them due
to the search that turned up the murder weapon in their vehicle being
based on a recently-vacated warrant.  Unfortunately, this sort of
event, criminals being released after technicalities void evidence
against them, is entirely too common in this country.   My question is
this:  Why does our legal system ignore reality?  Evidence should not
be dismissed as though it does not exist simply because it was acquired
in an illegal act or breach of rights.  It still exists, it still
serves to prove something, and tossing it aside on a technicality no
more serves justice than vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

Is there any reason for this sort of foolishness?  One answer might
be that the unlawful action against the criminal(s) requires redress,
and I fully agree with the sentiment.  However, disregarding very real
evidence is not the way to deal with another breach of law or rights.  
The old saw “Two wrongs do not a right make,” comes to mind, though in
a somewhat unconventional manner.  How is letting a criminal run amok a
deserving response to another wrong act?  Have we decided that the best
punishment for law enforcement officers breaking the rules is to
inflict injustice on the rest of society by rendering the criminal
actions of others untouchable?  I can’t accept that reasoning any more
than I could accept that of flogging an entire group to punish a single
member’s actions.  There are other options.

How do we deal with the infringement of other rights?   If someone
breaches another person’s right to free speech, we don’t respond by
silencing counterpoint to the wronged person (though some might
certainly like to change that).  The transgressors themselves are
punished, not the uninvolved people around them.  Perhaps there is
already something like this, but why not make a criminal offense in the
vein of “Abuse of Power” to encompass unauthorized searches and
seizures and punish whoever was involved in them?  Let the evidence
stand and be used to further a justice based in reality, and punish the
actual wrongdoers instead of inflicting further wrongs on society. 
Would not justice be better served like this?

In addition to preventing the release of criminals on
technicalities, the change would have two not inconsiderable benefits. 
The first is that the technicalities themselves would disappear,
streamlining the court process and diminishing the influence of
loophole-trained lawyers.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, a law
enforcement officer, seeing no way to lawfully obtain evidence against
a heinous criminal, could sacrifice his career and possibly part of his
future to unlawfully obtain the evidence needed to prosecute said
criminal.  One would expect this to be exceedingly rare, but it is not
inconceivable that an officer of the law might make that sacrifice if,
for example, it was the only way to prevent a serial killer from being
set free to take more lives.

What is the purpose of the law?  It exists to enforce justice.  That
in mind, the law is failing in its duty if it lets these criminals run
free because of the wrongful actions of others.  To any readers, do you
have a better way to deal with this problem?  Maybe you don’t think
there is a problem or that the current system is better than any
alternatives.  Perhaps I’ve missed something or overlooked another
angle that might change the entire issue, and you can correct me. 
Whatever it is, I’d like to hear what you have to say on the subject.