Keep in mind the judiciary doesn’t directly control the police, including hiring/firing decisions; it can only really control what goes on inside of the courtroom. The exclusionary rule[1] is kind of weird, but nobody’s figured out a different, noticeably better way to protect against unlawful search and seizure that works in the States.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio

Evidence is processed correctly almost every time. This suggests that inadmissibility is already an effective penalty.

We weren't discussing whether inadmissibility is an effective penalty or not though.

What we where discussing was if inadmissibility is good for serving justice (as opposed to serving as a guard against illegally obtaining evidence, and if so, whether we can abolish inadmissibility and use other, equally capable guards against illegally obtaining evidence).

Read the whole comment before posting, please.

I've read the whole comment before posting.

If you think someone missed something from the comment he was responding, say what that was, instead of posting zero-content critiques please.

There's the latter two third of the grand parent comment that completely counters your comment.