I believe that the exclusionary rule should be eliminated. I think that it is silly that if an evidence is found that can put a suspect away for good is found under technically illegal means, then it is considered invalid. I think that the idea is silly and should not exist.
There has to be rule and order followed. It especially has to be followed by the law itself. That's why we have the exclusionary rule. If a cop enters a house without a warrant, that evidence should not be permissible in a court of law. We need a new system.
The rule of law hangs in tatters, and people's rights are regularly being trampled upon. By ensuring that evidence is obtained in a Constitutional manner and discarding evidence that is found by other means, this rule protects the society as a whole from further abusive law enforcement practices. While it's true that there are convictions that are not obtained by excluding such evidence, the cost to society would be much higher without such basic protections.
There are rules and laws about how police can gather evidence. The exclusionary rule puts teeth on these rules and laws. Without the exclusionary rule, the police could still break the rules and laws when collecting evidence, and that evidence could still be used in court. The exclusionary rule keeps cops honest, and doesn't allow police to break the law in order to enforce the law.