[kspacewalk2]

Your argument can be applied to absolutely every investigative technique. Neighbours were interviewed, a suspect was identified, and then something went wrong for unrelated reasons. Clearly the problem is the very idea of interviewing neighbours, so we must eradicate the technique for privacy reasons, because Blackstone ratio and justice for all. The argument that this case is about police geocasting holds about as much water.

[u801e]

The question then becomes: How much harm will society suffer if that shoplifter got away or the murderer was not caught? In the former case, the store's insurance policy should cover the loss and prices are increased to offset the loss, and the shoplifter may do it again. In the latter case, it's possible that the murderer may kill someone else.

But the overall rate of shoplifting and murder isn't going to change substantially even if the police ruin a residence and refuse to pay for damages or arrest and jail the wrong person for a substantial period of time.

So it appears that there a negligible increase in overall risk to society and property if criminals sometimes get away, but there doesn't appear to be any substantial decrease in overall risk to them if they're caught at great cost to certain innocent individuals.

In other words, there's really no difference on a societal level whether or not these individual cases result in the arrest and conviction of these criminals, but there's a substantial difference in personal cost for the innocent individuals who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.