Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can always go full-retard with the utilitarianism. If you're going to allow injustice to happen to the few to the benefit the many, why even bother prosecute anyone for anything? That is quite a strawman coming out of nowhere! You can use Kant's Categorical Imperative for all I care to formulate my previous comment with something like: "It is acceptable to do an unjust action in order to determine a person's pos…
I disagree about the strawman. You would deny the victims concrete existing evidence of the accused's wrong doing--solely for the purpose of protecting the general public from some potential or abstract future harm. I disagree that this denial is actually necessary for preventing the potential or abstract future harm.
Insofar as it is for the victim (civil litigation by someone harmed by an unlawful act to seek redress) rather than the State (criminal process to impose criminal penalties pursued by and at the discretion of the executive branch of government), illegally obtained evidence is not excluded. The exclusionary rule only applies to evidence illegally obtained by the government which the government attempts to use in criminal prosecution. The victim is not involved.
The State represents the public as an abstract generality, not the individual victim. (Prosecutors like to pretend otherwise, but that's a manipulation technique, not reality.)