We certainly have some excellent procedural innovations in our court system. But we absolutely do have other problems that are much worse than those faced within the carceral systems of other countries at a similar level of wealth and development.
But anyway yeah we're way off track and your original point really seemed to be something like "but maybe the civilians deserve it" so I have not taken it seriously at any point and will continue not to.
Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.
None of this is to say that the US system is better; it is better in some ways and worse in others (notably sentencing).
A nation of laws doesn't exist when the judges discretion in favor of the Police who 'are trusted' and receive deferential accommodation over the rights of civilians to expect the laws/rules enforced on the government even if inconvenient.
The French system can be completely different, but, if you follow the logic of the law, it's matches what happens in practice, it's a valid legal system. The USA does not have that, because while it pretends warrant are required in actuality they aren't and requirements/protections for citizens can be waived away by judges under 'good faith'.
So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?
The Netherlands offers the right to remain silent. All European counties I am familiar offer something similar. On the European level, this right has recently been affirmed. [1]
In the Netherlands, improperly obtained evidence is indeed not excluded in the Netherlands. Improperly obtaining evidence is a separate crime that does not taint the case for the initial crime, and is prosecuted separately. However, improperly handled evidence (e.g. broken chain of custody) is normally excluded.
In practice, improperly obtained evidence is not a major problem, it will in itself not help convict an innocent person. Improperly handled evidence however, can easily lead to an innocent person being convicted.
[1] https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/european-court-justi...
I'm sure you're right, but presumably this means it would take you significantly less than two minutes to offer some concrete sources that would help enlighten kvdveer and anyone else who might be interested.
It would be a fun thread, and I think a little eye-opening. But nobody is reading this thread at this point so it's not worth sinking a lot of effort in here.
What's happening here is that we read more stories about criminal justice in America than stories about anywhere else. In fact, we more or less exclusively hear stories about America; we are the true crime center of the planet. That's fine, but it's also a powerful cognitive bias. Be careful about extrapolating too much from it.