I disagree about the strawman. You would deny the victims concrete existing evidence of the accused's wrong doing--solely for the purpose of protecting the general public from some potential or abstract future harm. I disagree that this denial is actually necessary for preventing the potential or abstract future harm.
> You would deny the victims existing and concrete evidence of the accused's wrong
Insofar as it is for the victim (civil litigation by someone harmed by an unlawful act to seek redress) rather than the State (criminal process to impose criminal penalties pursued by and at the discretion of the executive branch of government), illegally obtained evidence is not excluded. The exclusionary rule only applies to evidence illegally obtained by the government which the government attempts to use in criminal prosecution. The victim is not involved.
The State represents the public as an abstract generality, not the individual victim. (Prosecutors like to pretend otherwise, but that's a manipulation technique, not reality.)
