admissibility
so the other day, b asked why evidence would ever be inadmissible. i mean, he conceded the point that evidence that could have been tampered with or fabricated or otherwise spoiled should be excluded. but say there is no search warrant. currently, if the cops find kiddie porn on your computer from an illegal search, it's as if it doesn't exist. which is just weird. to b. cause it does exist. you can't just uncreate something with the wave of a pen. his position is the cops broke the law with their illegal search. and should be held accountable. but the evidence should still be able to be used against you. not sure how you'd punish the cops. put them in jail? hrm. fine them? make cops liable for the harm done from their illegal search of your illegal (but profitable!) porn business? hrm. it'd be a very different world. in this one, it seems some people like to make things illegal that other people like to do. and they counter by saying, fine then. but it's illegal for you to catch me doing the thing that shouldn't be illegal. seems like if we permitted but penalized illegal searches, the balance of power would shift to the state. for a while. at least until the criminals who run the country legalize their activities.