I've got no time for anyone like that.
The attitude people like that seem to have is, the authorities must be right, whoever they suspect must be guilty. What they don't realise, is that cops are actually there to investigate and compile evidence, it's the prosecution service who then takes over and determines whether or not there is a case. Justice works best if these two forces are relatively independent (insofar as they can be, considering they're supposed to be a partnership).
When one side is little more than servants of the other, miscarriages of justice are bound to occur. Cases go forward when they shouldn't - just because a cop suspects someone of committing an offence, doesn't mean he can on his own authority put the case through court. For it to proceed, the DPP or what you yanks call the DA's office has to ok it.
But above all, you have the court as the ultimate authority. And the court is personafied as the guy (or gal) who wears the robe. It's good for people to have faith in the police, after all they are there to catch crooks and protect people, but at the same time when a judge or group of judges make a decision, especially in the higher courts (and there are none higher than the State Full Court of Appeal, other than the High Court in Canberra), then you can rest assured that there exists no authority higher or more respected or more knowledgeable over the law. The same standard that applies to police and prosecutors ought to be applied to judges, otherwise it's a double-standard. Just think of what sort of qualifications/experience you need to apply to become a cop, then think of what you need to become a judge. Justice Vincent, who sat on me, is the most senior serving judge in Victoria. And the other two judges, Justices Nettle and Vickery, well, to be elevated to the Court of Appeal means you have to be pretty damn good at being a judge.
Oh, and the next time someone shoots their mouth off about 'getting off on a technicality', tell them this: in Victorian law, for appeals, there exists a provision in the actual legislation that states something like "A ground can be successful, but if no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred then it needn't be upheld." It's called the proviso, and can be applied to those sort of cases where someone is more than likely guilty, but is seeking to escape punishment over a technicality. Or a minor error that the presiding judge made. Only appeals with merit are supposed to succeed.