Legal systems in many countries take the stand that sometimes when there is an error on the part of the police, it must result in the suppression of the available evidence in the case. More so, this practice is applied whether the misconduct or error is of a minor or serious nature. It is the trial judge who decides whether the police misconduct or mistakes warrants the exclusion of evidence in a case proceeding.
In this regard, I am of the firm belief that if the evidence is valid it should not be excluded from a court case if the police made a minor procedural error. My basis for this belief rests on the fact that the available evidence has a strong bearing on the case and also has strong implications on the fate of the parties to the case as also in delivering true judgment by the judge. It is logical that if there is a crime or an illegal act committed which is not in keeping with the judicial system of the country, and there is valid evidence to support the happening of the incident as also to hold a person responsible for such illegal act, then why should justice be denied to the victim or sufferer just because the police has erred on certain aspects of the case (Limpak 2008).
This in itself is not in keeping with the basic tenets of the judicial system anywhere in the world, which is bound to ensure that justice is ultimately done no matter what the circumstances have been in regard to the case. If a vital piece of evidence is ignored due to police apathy, who are often known to manipulate cases under the garb of such prevailing practices, the very purpose of justice is not fulfilled and gradually there will be widespread anarchy and an ineffective legal system, ultimately jeopardizing the legal system.
Needless to add that such practices violate civil liberties and indirectly encourage police personnel to abuse their powers, and the defaulters do not get their deserved punishments. The police are expected to behave professionally while executing their duties and in a professional environment there is no room for ignoring mistakes. Police sometimes may take the plea that a piece of evidence has been obtained unconstitutionally, but as long as it is valid in a court of law, it must be accepted since it has a bearing on the case and the potential to unearth the truth in the given matter (Monique, Duane, 1999).
Some self-acclaimed legal interpreters claim that no action can be taken against the police for errors committed by them since it is human tendency to err, but the law does not see that and relies only on fact supported by evidence, and hence there is no question of ignoring the same.
If for some time we assume that the evidence may be allowed to be ignored if there is an error on the part of the police, I believe the police will have a legitimate opportunity to manipulate with evidence, they could obtain or reject evidence legally, and the entire system would become a joke as the rights of people would stand to be violated and the availability of justice would not be taken for granted by citizens (Sanchirico, William, 2004).
I feel that valid evidence is valid evidence and there would be nothing wrong if the police were to be held responsible for their errors and made to delve deeper into the case for more evidence instead of providing for the available evidence to be ignored. Going further, with the ultimate result of such a faulty practice I am of the opinion that ultimately everyone in society is punished and made to suffer in the long run of the consequences of such an unfair practice.
References
Adam Limpak, Should Suspects Go free When Police Blunder, 2008, New York Times.
Monique A, Fleming Duane, Procedural and legal Motivations to Correct for Perceived Judicial Biases, 1999. Web.
Sanchirico, Chris William, Evidence, procedure, and the upside of cognitive error, 2004. Web.