After one too many episodes of Law and Order, I continue to be frustrated with the way our system enables those who are found not guilty because of procedural issues, with the consequence that those with enough money to hire clever enough lawyers have a much better chance of getting off than someone without resources.
Of course this does not mean that those without resources who are found guilty are not guilty. It just means many who should be found guilty are not.
The logical fallacy of letting someone off because their Miranda rights weren't read to them or because evidence was found without a search warrant is heinous. The question of justice is a question of truth and guilt, not one of procedure. I understand that these "rights" were instituted to protect the innocent and to prevent corruption (I personally reject the notion of intrinsic rights on any subject, only common responsibilities toward others). But if it were at all possible these two issues should be separated. The police should get in trouble for not following proper procedure and the guilty should be found guilty, regardless of the procedure by which their guilt was discover.
Sure, make the stakes high for a police person who does not follow the proper procedure, especially if the person is found not guilty. Maybe even kick them off the force or suspend them without pay for six months. Make the stakes high for not following procedure. But, somehow, it ultimately has to be about guilt or innocence, not a ridiculous game that makes us a laughing-stock and that favors not the innocent, but the guilty.