Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the majority of it probably isn't 'how the world should be', a man is going free because (we speculate) that the evidence against him was gathered illegally. This bit probably is 'how the world should be'.
How so? In general if a criminal goes free despite having evidence against him just because the evidence was not obtained legally ... it sounds rather wrong to me.
Then I would encourage to get yourself over to your local community college and learn why things are the way they are in the legal system. You'll spend a fair amount of time talking about the different schools of thought on law in what law is and is supposed to do. First of all, you need a conviction or a confession to call him a criminal. This, or any other case, has nothing to do with any _one_ person or party. It has everything to do with _everyone_ else. You're not seeing the lasting consequences beyond The People v. Random Pedo. To be honest, society doesn't really need your input on how law should work if your only criteria to strip someone of their freedom or to execute them is whether or not one has been accused. You'd function more appropriately in 17th century colonial Massachusetts. The exclusionary rule in this country has only existed in its (mostly) current form since 1920, but has been a legal concept for many centuries. The main question to be answered in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States involved the applications of 4th amendment. In general, if our system of law allows for derivatives which are illegal obtained then you have no need for the 4th amendment protection. I shouldn't need to tell you what happens when militarized drug agencies execute a no-knock warrant on the wrong house. I shouldn't need to tell you what happens when a sheriff beats the shit out of a guy they picked up off the street to force a confession. I shouldn't need to tell you how this could be used to destroy the life or credibility of a political opponent, or to shutup a media organization. I shouldn't have to tell you that this would be a grand method for imprisoning more minorities on the basis of race, or that this would all but ensure a fair trial is impossible. But...your argument is about _legitimate_ evidence obtained illegally. I may have to tell you that if your solution were to be implemented then you'll need to tell the rest of us how we go about prosecuting the prosecution. Who's going to bring that lawsuit against them? And you may have to tell the rest of us what the legal test is to ensure that illegally obtained evidence is also not _manufactured_ evidence, because insofar as I am aware, no such legal test exists.